Re: Donoghue v Stevenson (was Stone Bottle)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Previous # Next ] [ Start New Thread ] [ TarBoard ]

Posted by Peter H on January 27, 2003 at 15:16:58 from 213.122.163.230 user Peter_H.

In Reply to: Re: Donoghue v Stevenson (was Stone Bottle) posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett on January 27, 2003 at 00:18:39:

Pretty good, Andrew, but substitute 'ought reasonably to have' for 'might reasonably have'.

The Court will now adjourn for lunch.

Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
Eel-Mail:

Existing subject (please edit appropriately) :

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

post direct to TarBoard test post first

Before posting it is necessary to be a registered user.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TarBoard ]

Courtesy of Environmental Science, Lancaster

space