2008/5/13 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > When no definition or distinction is explicitly made in the text It is. Read the contract. > , it is most reasonable to assume that member=party. Otherwise we'd have to > go back through all past contracts to see which terms were used, > which doesn't fit the notion of being flexible with reasonbly synonymous > terms in the absence of explicit definition or differentiation. > > > > Anyway, I quoted a piece of text that looked like a contract and > > certainly fit the proper form of a contract, and said I agreed. My > > intention was to agree to that piece of text. I think I did. > > Well, you agreed to a term that said you couldn't agree because the > maker was the only possible member. You could say that was an instantly > self-nullifying agreement (CFJ TRUE) or a non-agreement as it is > impossible (CFJ FALSE). I chose the latter since I don't tend to like > "instantaneous self-nullifying" constructs as a principle of law, but > either way it means you weren't a member of the contract for any > instant so it isn't really worth mooting. >
This seems basically correct to me. E agreed to a peice of text which specifically made his agreement possible. ehird
