Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
This is getting ridiculous.
I didn't know it was a judges job to believe in the most far fetched, completely asinine interpretation of a rule.
I'd love to hear an explanation of how the Flames would argue their case.
Go.
|
Because it doesw not state the players current club, it states a hockey club. Lawyers argue interpretations all the time when they are not clear, if you cannot grasp that then that is your issue. Judges make decisions on the interpretation of laws and words in contracts all the time. Saying the Flames would not be able to challenge the way that is written is the only assinine thing here.