Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The CAFC opinion is utter idiocy, Rahul.
No drunkenness this time? Isn't it awful how those actual judges
just don't have the wisdom, intelligence, and perspicacity that
you do?
You have to be either drunk or stupid to believe the CAFC was
correct concerning "conditions".
The Restatement (Second) of Contracts Article 224 states:
"Condition Defined:
A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur,
unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a
contract becomes due."
Obviously an "event" that depends on performance of a contract
cannot occur *before* performance of the contract becomes due. This
result is called an impossible condition in contract construction
and is strictly construed *against* the drafter.
The ruling of the CAFC reminds me of this limerick ridiculing the
theory of special relativity:
There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way
And returned the previous night!
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
-Reginald Buller
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
