On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In legal practice, and in Agoran Courts, what constitutes "reasonable"
> is not determined by what specific, interested parties might consider
> reasonable, but by what a "reasonable disinterested observer" might
> consider reasonable ("and by the parties" in R2169 refers to matters
> they might raise, not to their nonexistent role as to deciding what
> is equitable). It is quite in keeping with equity for a judge to impose
> a compromise that neither side would consider equitable, but that a
> disinterested observer would consider fair.
I do not see how a "reasonable disinterested observer" could fail to
come to the conclusion that the judgement was equitable.
By the way, I think it's worth noting that R2169 doesn't actually
remove the effect of the original judgement just because it was
appealed, but rather delegates that to "the usual processes":
When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a
judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past
week (or all parties to the contract have approved that
judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement
between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification
or termination by the usual processes governing binding
agreements.
-root
