On Mon, 12 May 2008, comex wrote: > You have not opposed the position that, because there is one party, > any judgement is equitable, therefore reasonably equitable, therefore > appropriate; in which case there would be no "serious doubt about the > appropriateness of the prior judgement".
Er, from my text: > Ultimately, it the responsibility of the Courts to decide > what is equitable, and this power and duty extends to the Appeals board, > even if a single (or every) party in an equity case is satisfied with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the initial judgement. "single (or every)" covers the case where single = every. -Goethe
