Shmuel wrote: | There is enough substantive ambiguity | to enrich the legal profession.
and I think not. There is, however, much language that can be argued to have a meaning different from that its speaker/writer intended, particularly when that language is wrenched out of its context. The law in fact has a bent for disambiguation. Many apparently banal lawyer's phrases have been so much litigated that their meanings have been made very clear. The patent lawyer's talk of 'a person learned in the art' is an example. It appears to be vague, almost empty of content; it is in fact a very precise notion. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
