Logic (Lionel Smith, 14 Mar 2007)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Lionel Smith
Date:	Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:35:48 -0400
Re:	Logic

But we also know that "As there were no quales but only tales, it follows that there were not tales because you cannot have a tales without a quales." Lord Goddard CJ in R. v. Solomon, [1958] 1 Q.B. 203, 208.

And so say all of us.
Lionel

On 14/3/07 14:23, "DAVID CHEIFETZ" wrote:
Ah ... but we all know that a case can't "be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all” (Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495 at 506, Lord Halsbury).

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.