On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The noun phrase "modified X" (e.g. "secret rule") may not automatically be
>> a strict sub-instance of X ("rule") and all the rules governing X. In
>> the past, for example, we decided in the courts that a "limited executor"
>> was a distinct thing from an "executor" so that rules governing the latter
>> did not necessarily apply to the former. Context is important.
>
> I don't recall that precedent. Do you happen to have the case number?
> I'm not sure it's all that relevant anyway, since "limited executor"
> had an explicit definition in the rules.
I'll refresh my memory and see where it was, I remember the discussion but
admittedly it might be buried in a minor note of actual precedent. Since then
though, I realize another (more important) point: defining a term in an agoran
context doesn't rob it of its common english meaning in other contexts, even
when discussing the meaning in Agoran fora...as long as the context is fairly
clear. One could say that the "rules" of a contract are what agora might refer
to as clauses, the question is whether a reasonable person could tell the
difference from the context. -Goethe
