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

[Seth Gordon <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

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.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.