[blml] About restoring equity

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Grattan Endicott" <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
>  In Law 12C2 I read: "had the irregularity not occurred"

Note the singular "irregularity."  Unfortunately, the new Laws seem to 
blur this with (in the Introduction) "Finally, unless the context 
clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural...."

I don't see why this statement was added.  Usually there is significant 
difference between singular and plural events.

> 64C refers to "any established revoke, including those not subject 
> to penalty". Law 64B2 lists a second revoke by the same offender 
> in the same suit.

And in the new Laws, 64B2 specifically refers to L64C.  This seems to 
imply an adjustment for the second revoke itself, not for the combination.

>     (2007)  "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an 
> innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would 
> have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred."

Again the singular "infraction" would be telling (indeed conclusive, in 
my view) were it not for the statement in the Introduction.

I hope the forthcoming Appendix will address Konrad's question.