Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8892343" data-attributes="member: 7039850">This is highly interesting! I agree to your assesment that in this case seem like something there would be laws prohibitting. I would think there are mechanisms in place to protect against someone entering a completely unreasonable deal due to not fully understanding the full implications of the wording. And I dont know what the legal effects would be. For instance if the law decides 1.0a is unfair as it appear to technically allow such exploits, there are as far as I could see at least two ways the law could respond: Either nullify the abusable contract (1.0a), or giving the result you suggest that only the part allowing for the exploit is considered not valid for this exploiting case.The first one is actually the strongest argument I have understood (not neccessarily seen) so far for how 1.1 could effectively kill 1.0a, so that is something. And I have to now agree that your incompatibility argument between 1.1 and 1.0a might make a lot of sense.So thank you very much! Your long answer was really enlightening, and I actually think it might have helped me out of a way of thinking I was stuck in.(And by the way I am also anoyed by my own IANALs, but as I am not a lawyer I just don't feel safe how to post musings about law in a thread filled with lawyers :/ I just have no way to guess what might be the limit of someone misconstrued something as legal advice, and I might get in some sort of trouble)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8892343, member: 7039850"] This is highly interesting! I agree to your assesment that in this case seem like something there would be laws prohibitting. I would think there are mechanisms in place to protect against someone entering a completely unreasonable deal due to not fully understanding the full implications of the wording. And I dont know what the legal effects would be. For instance if the law decides 1.0a is unfair as it appear to technically allow such exploits, there are as far as I could see at least two ways the law could respond: Either nullify the abusable contract (1.0a), or giving the result you suggest that only the part allowing for the exploit is considered not valid for this exploiting case. The first one is actually the strongest argument I have understood (not neccessarily seen) so far for how 1.1 could effectively kill 1.0a, so that is something. And I have to now agree that your incompatibility argument between 1.1 and 1.0a might make a lot of sense. So thank you very much! Your long answer was really enlightening, and I actually think it might have helped me out of a way of thinking I was stuck in. (And by the way I am also anoyed by my own IANALs, but as I am not a lawyer I just don't feel safe how to post musings about law in a thread filled with lawyers :/ I just have no way to guess what might be the limit of someone misconstrued something as legal advice, and I might get in some sort of trouble) [/QUOTE]

Verification