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

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

On 5/18/06, Seth Gordon <sethg@ropine.com> wrote:
> 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.

ru'a Law has rules of interpretation because it knows that parties
will screw up the contract. Observe the Wikipedia entry for
"contract". A lot of it seems to come down to "what a reasonable
person in position X would have thought that the contract would be".
The court handles this sort of thing to the extent that it's not even
seen as a screwup. And formal contracts specifically /do/ write out
all the terms in "such excruciating detail". The milk company's
contract was likely an informal one, "we'll deliver milk to you every
Tuesday until X, sign here".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Express_and_implied_terms

> > 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

It's only an example. Perhaps they didn't have enough on stock, or
their massive fridge was broken, which is why they entered the
contract in the first place.

> written a clause in the contract providing for penalties in the event of
> a missed delivery (giving the dairy an incentive to consider delivering

Contracts don't have to have this incentive. The incentive is always
that the wronged party is compensated for what they would have had
upon the contract's completion, or what they had upon entering the
contract. See the WP "Contract" page, section #Remedies.

> in spite of the tiger), or insured the critters against such accidents.

I'm reasonably sure that an insurance company wouldn't have to pay if
the zoo did not seek compensation from the "wrongdoer", in the same
way an insurance company doesn't pay for stolen goods unless the
insured party agrees to press charges against the theif.


But then, I don't know the case, and I'm not a lawyer, and neither are
you, so really we both don't know a thing. I think, however, that I'm
safe in saying that contracts are not an example where *restrictions*
are ambiguous (though perhaps an example of where a court may not care
about the words on the paper if they're clearly not what both parties
intended).