[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Tuesday 06 June 2006 08:21, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 07:41 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Reading a proposed contract or license in any way other than
> > literally and pedantically is "dumb".  Some actions are so
> > dumb that no nicer adjective is correct.  Judges are like
> > compilers.  Modulo judge bugs (which can usually be fixed on
> > appeal) judges process legal source files literally and
> > pedantically.
> I believe you are quite incorrect - judges are far from automatic. They
> interpret each and every individual case on its own merit, circumstances
> and context, on the intention of the law, and take the personal
> situation of the involved parties in consideration. The keyword is
> "reason": a judge will try to decide in a way that he/she considers to
> be the most reasonable, not the most literal.

[Dropping -devel]

Hi Thijs,

The DLJ is governed by California law and controlling US federal
law [DLJ (14)].  Under the explicit terms [DLJ (14)] and under
the parole evidence rule the judge cannot consider anything other
than the literal pedantic terms of the contract and subsequent
written amendments signed by both parties.

Evidence of intent may be introduced where the contract is
ambiguous.  You have not made any showing that the contract is
ambiguous with respect to indemnification, and thus evidence of
intent is inadmissible.

The personal situations of the parties is inadmissible except
where the door is opened by the contract itself or by relevant
legislation.  You have made no showing that the door has been
opened, and thus evidence of personal situations is inadmissible.

Judges have broad discretion in some matters:  the orderly
conduct of proceedings, contempt, evidentiary rulings, ...

However judges literally and pedantically follow the
constitutions, statutes, ordinances, regulations, licenses,
and contracts.  If there is any variance from this it is
when a party fails to timely raise a relevant point in

--Mike Bird

Reply to: