[blml] Countdown

[Adam Beneschan]

David Collier wrote:
 
> >Richard Hills:
> >
> >For a definitional dog in the night time, look at the nothing between
> >the definition of "Contract" and the definition of "Deal".
> 
> I see it, but I don't understand what it means. The word "convention" 
> appears in the new Law 40B. What are we supposed to deduce from the lack of 
> a definition?

The new Law 40B says, if I read it correctly: Any partnership
agreement is a Special Partnership Understanding (SPU) if the
Regulating Authority (RA) says it is; conventions are automatically
considered SPU's unless the RA says they aren't.  Since this pretty
much gives RA full authority to determine which agreements are SPU's,
I'd say that the definition of "convention" could also be left up to
the RA's, since their responsibility here is to make known which
agreements are SPU's and which ones aren't.  On the other hand, I'm
not sure... the last phrase seems to say that calls with "artificial
meanings" are always SPU's, and RA's can't designate them otherwise.
On the other hand, the ordering of the sentence is a bit strange and
maybe that "unless" clause applies both to "conventions" and to "calls
with artificial meanings".  Or is the list in this sentence supposed
to be exhaustive---i.e. "conventions" and "calls with artificial
meanings" are SPU's if the RA doesn't say otherwise, and others (even
if they meet the "not readily understood" criterion of 40B1(a)) are
not?  It's not clear to me what the authors were trying to say here.

                                -- Adam