Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

[Seth Gordon <sethg@ropine.com>]

Maxim Katcharov wrote:
>>
>> No it is not.  That was the correct way to write
>> the contract.  It would have been unreasonable
>> and misleading to have put in all the conditions
>> that might apply.
> 
> 
> I don't see how it would have been misleading. You probably wouldn't
> have to put in all the conditions - just one that says "except on days
> where it is unreasonable given the previously-described resources of
> the milk company" (or something).

IANAL, but I believe that one reason the law has standard rules of
contractual interpretation is so that the parties to a contract *don't*
have to write out every condition in such excruciating detail.

> What if this was a zoo (er, not the one that allowed the tiger out)
> that was getting milk delivered to it, to be consumed by some rare
> specimens that would eat nothing else? Zoo gets no milk, rare baby
> critters died. Do you think that the court would have ruled
> differently?

The zoo is in a better position than the dairy to know the consequences
of missing a milk delivery; they could have made sure to have enough
milk on hand to feed the critters in spite of the missed delivery, or
written a clause in the contract providing for penalties in the event of
a missed delivery (giving the dairy an incentive to consider delivering
in spite of the tiger), or insured the critters against such accidents.