On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is this for 2696 or 2698 or both? I'm throwing it in as gratuitous
> arguments (already have done for Pavitra and 2706).
That was 2696; I didn't notice the linked case 2698. For the record I
would have judged trivially TRUE, with the caveat that ais523's
attempted conclusion ("intending, then waiting 4 days, gives a
reasonable opportunity; a reasonable opportunity constitutes notice;
therefore, intending constitutes notice") is faulty for two reasons.
First, Rule 101 (iv) refers to an amendment, not an intent to amend.
Just as burying an intent inside a long report can prevent it from
being counted as valid notice, so can burying it inside a host of
other intents. There was only one amendment, and everyone had plenty
of opportunity to review its implications-- amended contract is turned
into a mousetrap-- but there were many intents, and it might be
unreasonable to expect everyone to review every possible way the
intent could go through. After all, if everyone had notice of the
intent to amend Cookie Jar, wouldn't they have left the contract?...
Second, "with notice", with the implicit nod to dependent actions
(even before With Notice was introduced) probably requires a more
formal process than ordinary-language notice. After all, if all
that's required is ordinary-language notice of ordinary-language
intent, simply (for example) protoing the change to the discussion
forum would be enough to trap anyone the caller could prove read it,
for who posts a proto of a change they don't intend to implement?
--
-c.
