On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this >>> prevents the application of common sense... >>> >> >> But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that >> either side would have the option to opt-out if they didn't like the report. >> > > You misunderstand. The issue is not "they didn't like the report." Likes, > dislikes and preferences play no part in this. The issue is whether the > report is technically correct. In a court case over a technical dispute of > this nature, expert witnesses are brought in to render an opinion on the > analyses from Rossi and I.H. If the expert witnesses convincingly show that > one side or the other is correct, that is how the judge will rule. > But again, my point is not for the present, but how the agreement was arranged. It's not common sense to assume that one side would have been given the option to 'opt-out'. If you're saying that there's an inference here, that the report must meet some technical standard, even though that wasn't specified in the agreement, then I'll defer to your legal expertise.
