Re:Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
by CogitoCogito on Saturday July 09, 2022 @06:25AM
(#32033637)
Well-written contracts don't really have multiple valid interpretations. I don't know why we should assume the contract wasn't well-written.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
by aeternum on Saturday July 09, 2022 @03:24PM
(#32038427)
Well if that's your definition, I'd go so far as to say 'well-written' contracts don't exist.
Re:Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
by CogitoCogito on Saturday July 09, 2022 @04:10PM
(#32038822)
> Well if that's your definition, I'd go so far as to say 'well-written' contracts don't exist.
Do you believe it's not possible to draw up clear contracts with clear meanings? Do you believe that if you just take any contract and pay a lawyer some money, they can argue whatever? In that case, what's the purpose of drawing up a contract at all?
Re:Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement
by aeternum on Saturday July 09, 2022 @06:25PM
(#32039883)
Language is imprecise so I'd argue it is basically impossible to create a contract with zero ambiguity.
Resolving that ambiguity is an important function of law and I'd go so far as to say the primary function of the court system. I do believe that if you pay a lawyer enough money you can probably find one willing to argue what you want although you may not win.