Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8918182" data-attributes="member: 7039850">Exactly! What I tried there was to spell out explicitly in legal speech was how I believed your implicit reading of the &quot;Contributors&quot; definition.My impression is that the big understanding gap between you and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] has been that standard contract theory require all involved legal entities involved to be well defined, and normally static once the contract has been signed. Hence trying to introduce such a dynamic understanding of the parts of a contract outlined would need to be made explicit to be &quot;understandable&quot; (given that it might even be well known to breach some sort of basic contractual limitation, and hence not really worthwhile to consider in an educated discussion)I am sorry about the &quot;name&quot;. It was not a reference to section 6. Rather it was an attempt at legalese, as I for some reason seem to think that a standard formulation in legal theory is that a contract need to &quot;name&quot; all relevant parts. (I really don't know from where I have gotten that idea though, so I can't site any sources). As the contract at hand clearly do not &quot;name&quot; the parts in the common sense of the word if we are trying to accept my understanding of your interpretation, I hence included it with quotes, hoping it would improve the readability from a legalese point of view.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8918182, member: 7039850"] Exactly! What I tried there was to spell out explicitly in legal speech was how I believed your implicit reading of the "Contributors" definition. My impression is that the big understanding gap between you and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] has been that standard contract theory require all involved legal entities involved to be well defined, and normally static once the contract has been signed. Hence trying to introduce such a dynamic understanding of the parts of a contract outlined would need to be made explicit to be "understandable" (given that it might even be well known to breach some sort of basic contractual limitation, and hence not really worthwhile to consider in an educated discussion) I am sorry about the "name". It was not a reference to section 6. Rather it was an attempt at legalese, as I for some reason seem to think that a standard formulation in legal theory is that a contract need to "name" all relevant parts. (I really don't know from where I have gotten that idea though, so I can't site any sources). As the contract at hand clearly do not "name" the parts in the common sense of the word if we are trying to accept my understanding of your interpretation, I hence included it with quotes, hoping it would improve the readability from a legalese point of view. [/QUOTE]

Verification