from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"Reason's whole pleasure, all the
joys of sense,
Lie in three words, health, peace,
and competence."
-~ Alexander Pope.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Eymard" <roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr>
To: "David Barton" <david.j.barton at lineone.net>;
<blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1
> Roger Eymard :
>
> Questions and answers seem to have happened
> after the final pass. So L20F2 applies, and does
> not contain any requirement as to who explains
> what are NS agreements.
<
+=+ An interesting thought. There is an intention
that replies should be given as in 20F1 but the
drafting is sloppy. 20F2 is silent on the question
of who should reply; but that creates no authority
for extending the provision so that either partner may
reply. When the law was drafted it was meant to be
understood that the only statement made on the
point should still govern who should respond. Your
interpretation demonstrates that the drafters should
have been more explicit to avoid confusion.
~ Grattan ~ +=+