[blml] concession

[Herman De Wael]

Tim West-Meads wrote:
> 
> Had the lawmakers wished to group all concessions together they should
> have written L68b2:
> 
> "Regardless of L68A or 1 preceding..." and left in the words "or claim"
> (they didn't thus there is no provision to cancel a claim as defined in
> L68A).
> 

But they did not decide to leave it in!
See the 1997L68B!
It was added in a draft, and they decided not to put it in, because 
they deemed it was not needed. Putting it in would have meant they had 
changed something in this law, which they decided they did not want to do.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html