I think this discussion and the examples given all point to one inevitable
conclusion.
If businesses stuck to SI for all specifications and agreements involving
measurement there could be no dispute about the meaning or interpretation of
the data. This would apply whether the contract was domestic or overseas.
That's the message to take out there.
Phil Hall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anon Anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: [USMA:35176] metric units in contracts
Pat Naughtin wrote:
I know that the Australian law specifically provides
for a contract to be 'null and void' if any unit
other than an 'Australian legal unit of
measurement' is used in a contract.
As far as I know, that does not apply to UK law. A
contract can be legal in any unit. The contract could
use cubits. It would be wise to provide a definition
of unusual units but a contract does not require it.
If the contracting parties got into a dispute and took
it to court, each party would have to state their case
as to the definition of the unit. For example, there
is no UK legal definition of a 'US pint' but if that
term were in the contract, then the courts in the UK
would be likely to award the case to the party
claiming that the US definition should apply.
If the term were simply 'pint', then the UK definition
would apply by default. That is partly what the UK
Units of Measurement Regulations are for.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951804_en_1.htm
The courts in the UK are not bound to use the UK
definition if a convincing alternative case for a
foreign definition could be made.
As I understand it.
Terry
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
