• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Depth Chart Released

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BB73;2000590; said:
Nope - you screwed up and posted yesterday.




You still have 1 week. No joke.
Click to expand...

GeorgiaBuck2;2000602; said:
That don't count. Wasn't even Buckeye related.

:wink2:
Click to expand...
Rules of legal/contractual construction say that the author of a contract bears the harm if the contractual provision is unclear, the rationale being the author of the language had the opportunity to be clearer when the terms were set forth.

Here, Georgia did not make it clear as to what event "triggered" the start of the week ban. Since of the subject condition of the bet was an undefeated Buckeye team at the time of the Husker game, it is unclear whether that week ban started upon the first Buckeye loss, or was triggered by the Nebraska-the Ohio State contest itself.

Georgia said, "We will be undefeated by the time we play Nebraska. If I'm wrong, I won't post for a week..."

If the Miami loss was the trigger, then the week has passed. If the "time we play Nebraska" - or Saturday night - was the trigger, Georgia has one more week off. So again - as Georgia had the burden of making it clear what the terms were and how they were fulfilled, then the ambiguity is construed against the author of the terms.


That, plus BB73 wields the Ban Hammer of the Gods. :p

image.php
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;2010708; said:
Rules of legal/contractual construction say that the author of a contract bears the harm if the contractual provision is unclear, the rationale being the author of the language had the opportunity to be clearer when the terms were set forth.

Here, Georgia did not make it clear as to what event "triggered" the start of the week ban. Since of the subject condition of the bet was an undefeated Buckeye team at the time of the Husker game, it is unclear whether that week ban started upon the first Buckeye loss, or was triggered by the Nebraska-the Ohio State contest itself.

Georgia said, "We will be undefeated by the time we play Nebraska. If I'm wrong, I won't post for a week..."

If the Miami loss was the trigger, then the week has passed. If the "time we play Nebraska" - or Saturday night - was the trigger, Georgia has one more week off. So again - as Georgia had the burden of making it clear what the terms were and how they were fulfilled, then the ambiguity is construed against the author of the terms.


That, plus BB73 wields the Ban Hammer of the Gods. :p

image.php
Click to expand...

F'n lawyers.
 
Upvote 0
I sure hope Braxton can go because given the winds we've seen in games played at Illinois some people in the first 20 rows will need to be alert for flying objects based on today's news.
 
Upvote 0
Honestly, how bad must the other two be in practice for Bauserman to still be number 2? They must have no idea of what the play book even looks like for that guy to still be the back up.

That's all I can come up with at this point. Guiton and Graham must not even be able to run a play.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top