Continuing from the preceding post
Second, take this scenario. The corruption guy made the judges inside the court agree that I need to have my faith or certainty in the outcome of my lawsuit be reduced. Then they agreed to deny my petition. Now, doesn't this suggest that originally the contract was to achieve the purpose described above and that the denial of my petition became part of the contract only as the implementation form to achieve that purpose? If so, then wouldn't realizing, through my reaction , that the intended result is there pushes outside the contract all remaining things that were in the implementation part ?
No comments:
Post a Comment