Replies to post #401839 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[whipstick]

That being said, I do think that the interpretation by the appellate court in the Perry case was wrong about its interpretation of "may". "May" has a very distinct meaning in the law, and I feel the judges did not adhere to how the law has defined and used the word "may" in a contract over the last 50-100 years.

So how do you get past this in the legal system if the judges can change the definition of simple words like this?

Recall they also decided to change the definition of conservator in their ruling as well.

It was a ruling so full of nonsensical reasoning the only logical conclusion is outside coercion.

Sorry if you feel otherwise but I'd love to see you attack my conclusion with logic and not legal workarounds.

Put another way - how do you have any faith in the legal system after that ruling? I have next to 0 left.

[philipmax]

Hi rekcusdo
I understand your position. I just read several posts that you followed up with. So, I gather that you are an Attorney, and if you are not one, you certainly have the talent to be one. I have wrestled with court decisions that utterly confound all sense of logic and, even Law. Certainly the Lambert decision in the FNMA case is one of them.
I am pleased that you chose the term 'may' as the subject of discussion. Yes, of course you have it right, but, the term has been withered by sloppy Courts and it therefore should never be used in Contract. We can't just throw words that have dubious, double meaning into contracts and hope that the Appellate system will get it right..eventually.
Anyway this is too short a place to discuss. Nevertheless, I enjoy your discussion points.