On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Taral wrote: > I don't think this is a fix. It doesn't stop the Rules from imposing > an obligation on you derived from a definition or declaration in a > contract by which you are not bound.
Wouldn't you use the standard-English definition in place of the contract definition? Ooh, another bug: any term defined in a contract can't be actually used or assumed in the rules because it is not (R754) "explicitly defined by the Rules". So does that mean any CFJ about "sell tickets" has to use a standard definition of the term and not the one in the contract? Thoughts? -Goethe
