Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxwoodsFiend
thanks for chiming in for the nitpick. change unforeseeable to unforeseen and carry on
or really something the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract and the risk of occurrence was not assumed by either party. god the law is boring sometimes
Oh and sorry I wasn't trying to nit pick just saying I don't think the extreme weather thing helps so much here.
But if you did want to use the analogy I guess that the question would be, assuming that the DOJ was really the intervening cause of the challenge getting f'ed up (I think most of us think it wasn't) is whether the DOJ intervening was more like Viffer losing the house that he built on a floodplain or Viffer losing his house because it was destroyed in an alien invasion. Viffer is trying to argue, I think implausibly, that it was the latter. I think most people agree that the action on this bet was more like building your house in a place susceptible to any number of interferences. I mean when black friday happened people were shocked that it was happening, but nobody really thought it was impossible or even all that unlikely that it could happen, right?
Like I said, no dog in this fight, just reading a lot of arguing past each other.