[blml] agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Alain Gottcheiner:
> 
> 
>>1. "I don't understand that agreement" doesn't necessarily mean "we've
>>no agreement". Something TDs and ACs keep forgetting.
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> I disagree.  In my opinion, an agreement is a _mutual_ understanding of
> _both_ partners, not a _unilateral_ assumption by _one_ partner.  If one
> member of the partnership never understood the Kalamazoo Club system,
> then the partnership does not have an agreement to use the Kalamazoo Club
> system.
> 

Richard may well be right, but it's totally unimportant. Since the 
opponents are entitled to know the agreements, even when "we agree to 
disagree", this should be told them. "I play Kalamazoo version A, but 
he prefers version B" is the only full explanation.
Of course, no-one needs the full explanation, only the relevant bit.
So "that bid means XXX according to Kalamazoo version B" or even "that 
bid means XXX" is what should have been said. Anything else, including 
"that bid means YYY because we have agreed to play Kalamazoo" is then MI.


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006