[blml] 40B3, etc.

[Stefanie Rohan]

From: "Eric Landau"

> The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit agreements
> about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by circumstance to
> develop implicit agreements over time.  The Law can't ban you from
> doing something that you cannot avoid doing.  And since the Law makes
> it clear that implicit agreements are to be treated no differently
> than explicit ones, if you can't ban the former in a particular
> circumstance you can't ban the latter either.

Indeed so. But it is not even implicit agreements developed over time, 
really. In the example you gave, the meanings of the various RCs were 
work-out-able at the table. Just by reflecting why partner chose one RC and 
not another, you will have at least some information not contained in the RC 
itself.

This is a very very bad idea. I think that one legal RC, as in the past, is 
the only way to avoid this, and is the way, er, "forward".

Stefanie Rohan
London, England