82,503
edits
I never said you couldn’t: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:'''{{jbm}}''': “Permission to run for the hills, your honour.” <br> | :'''{{jbm}}''': “Permission to run for the hills, your honour.” <br> | ||
:'''{{cmr}}''': “Granted, {{jbm}}. Flee!” <br> | :'''{{cmr}}''': “Granted, {{jbm}}. Flee!” <br> | ||
==={{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}=== | |||
All this ribaldry is all well and good but we should mention curious case of ''[[Greenclose]]'', which is held that section {{isdaprov|12}} of the {{isdama}}, which provides several methods by which a party “[[may]]” communicate under that {{isdama}} should be interpreted to exclude any other means of communication — in other words as a “must”. More on that in the [[Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc - Case Note|case note]] and in our article on section {{isdaprov|12 of}} the {{isdama}} | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||