[blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 16/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> Richard Hills ("my dream" thread 21st December 2004):
>
> >>>>>I dreamt that Herman De Wael, myself and Wayne
> >>>>>Burrows were in a train arguing about the
> >>>>>definitional boundary between an "undiscussed" call,
> >>>>>and an implicit concealed partnership agreement.  I
> >>>>>then dreamt that through the train's window, we
> >>>>>observed a black sheep in a field.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Herman said, "How interesting; all sheep are black."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I said, "Not so; some sheep are black."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Wayne said, "There exists at least one field, which
> >>>>>contains at least one sheep, at least one side of
> >>>>>which is black."
>
> Grattan Endicott quoting Law 75B:
>
> >>>>+=+ "habitual violations within a partnership may
> >>>>create implicit agreements"  +=+
>
> Wayne Burrows black sheeping:
>
> >>>Exactly ... they do not necessarily create implicit
> >>>agreements.
>
> Kojak quoting experience:
>
> >>I beg to differ with Grattan.  It is not "habitual"
> >>violations that create implicit agreements. One is
> >>usually enough.
>
> Wayne Burrows black sheeping:
>
> >Unfortunately for you Grattan quotes the law so it is
> >his post that is accurate and your view that is not.
> >
> >It is sad that when the law only states that a habitual
> >violation may create an implicit agreement that there
> >are esteemed directors that are willing to rule on even
> >less evidence that an implicit agreement must be
> >created.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> It is sad that when an implicit agreement exists an
> esteemed blmler tries to "black sheep" away the facts.
>
> Or as Kojak might say, Wayne is "blowing smoke".  Law
> 75B does _not_ say, "habitual violations are ***the only
> way*** that implicit agreements may be created".
>
> Implicit agreements are very frequently created in other
> ways.  For example, both members in a new partnership
> may be regular players at the Canberra Bridge Club's
> Thursday night session, so both partners may have the
> implicit assumption that their agreement to play "Aussie
> Acol" (which is totally different from old English Acol)
> includes the implicit agreement to play the convention
> "Canberra Crowhurst" (which is totally different from
> the eponymous convention of Eric Crowhurst).
>

I am not blowing smoke.  There is nothing in my argument that prevents
implicit agreements being established in some other way.  You should
know this by your "black sheep" argument.

My argument above was only concerned with establishing an implicit
agreement from 'one instance'.  Of course if there is 'one instance'
plus other collaborating evidence this maybe sufficient. However IMHO
'one instance' plus no other evidence can never be sufficient.

Wayne