Aris wrote:
> In short, there a great many reasons why I disagree with your reading,
> and I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider (you can
> do so on your own initiative by announcement if you wish to).
I support because of the contract point we discussed in this thread.
Oh well we can't have that. I destroy all coins possessed by
D. Marguax to throw them into the fountain.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> I think both ATMunn’s and Aris’s opinions are plausible, and I will try to
> offer a more spirited defense of ATMunn’s when I have time. However,
I think both ATMunn’s and Aris’s opinions are plausible, and I will try to
offer a more spirited defense of ATMunn’s when I have time. However, since we
brought up the expressio unius and surplusage canons.
I am currently at (0, 0). The Rule says I CAN destroy a coin to throw it into
the
I disagree in several respects.
First, I disagree with the sentence "It seems logical that the
contract does indeed exist, as a contract is simply an agreement;
however, it has no binding power." I request a rule citation for this
highly confusing claim. Rule 1742 explicitly states that _all_
