Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2813

===================  CFJ 2813 (Interest Index = 0)  ====================

    I can, without objection, ratify the document that I purported
    above to be part of an official report

========================================================================

Caller:                                 coppro

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by coppro:                       15 Jul 2010 05:57:44 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     16 Jul 2010 22:55:51 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 16 Jul 2010 23:32:36 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

Per Rule 2202, a document purported to be part of an official report may 
be ratified without objection. Does the fact that I said I was 
purporting it to be one qualify, even though I clearly stated that it 
wasn't part of an official report?

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

> Despite the fact that it certainly isn't, I purport the following
> document to be part of an official report: {Warrigal never held the
> Patent Title Left in a Huff.}

========================================================================

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

There are two obvious ways to interpret this case:

  1) The message counts as two claims (one that the document is part of
     an official report, one that it isn't), both of which effectively
     count as claims (even though one is false).

  2) The message counts as one claim, with an attached disclaimer broad
     enough to render the claim ineffective.  (A related precedent
     states that an announcement "I do X" is not rendered ambiguous by
     a limited disclaimer such as "this may be ineffective if I'm not
     the Registrar", but is rendered ambiguous by a broad disclaimer
     such as "this may be ineffective".)

Based on similarity to Rule 478 (last pargraph) and Rule 2215 (section
b), I favor the second interpretation, and find that

  * the purporting in question was ineffective
  * there was no other relevant purporting or even claim of purporting
  * there was no other rule permitting ratification without objection
  * there was a rule (Rule 1551, last paragraph) prohibiting it

or, if you prefer,

  * the purporting in question was ineffective
  * the statement was missing a referent
  * ratification without objection is impossible without a referent

========================================================================