4 ms·
The article left me confused about what it means to have a legally binding redefinition of a term. Does this mean that all existing, legally binding contracts
by DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
The article left me confused about what it means to have a legally binding redefinition of a term.
Does this mean that all existing, legally binding contracts are to be reinterpreted using the new definition of "foot"?
Does it mean that any new legal document (contract, legislation, etc.) that uses the term "foot" without further clarification shall be assumed to mean this new definition of "foot"?
- ska 7y agoI believe it is the latter.
- not2b 7y agoIn practice, since the difference is so small it does not matter in almost all cases, because no one was in a position to measure accurately enough. If you ask for 100 feet of rope, the difference between the two definitions of "foot" is much tinier than the smallest possible roundoff error you or the sales person will make.
- ska 7y agoThat's fine for measuring most things, but not necessarily for survey work. Your reference points can be quite far away, and you are dealing with angles. So ever pretty tiny changes can be significant.
- oh_sigh 7y agoAs a general point, I don't think contracts can have their terms adjusted after the fact without both parties agreeing to it.
- ska 7y agoThis seems the only reasonable way to do it except for terms deemed unenforceable (which is why you see a lot of boilerplate about severability)