| contr.jur. |
чётко (о тексте контракта • [Justice David] Crerar rejected that logic. Under B.C.’s Interpretation Act, “must” is to be construed as imperative, he noted. “Without ambiguity, hypothetical absurdities cannot contort the plain language of the statute,” Crerar wrote, adding that developers who violate the act are subject to criminal, civil, and regulatory punishments. (nsnews.com) ART Vancouver) |
| form. |
без всякой двусмысленности (о тексте контракта • [Justice David] Crerar rejected that logic. Under B.C.’s Interpretation Act, “must” is to be construed as imperative, he noted. “Without ambiguity, hypothetical absurdities cannot contort the plain language of the statute,” Crerar wrote, adding that developers who violate the act are subject to criminal, civil, and regulatory punishments.  nsnews.com ART Vancouver); недвусмысленно (о тексте контракта • [Justice David] Crerar rejected that logic. Under B.C.’s Interpretation Act, “must” is to be construed as imperative, he noted. “Without ambiguity, hypothetical absurdities cannot contort the plain language of the statute,” Crerar wrote, adding that developers who violate the act are subject to criminal, civil, and regulatory punishments. nsnews.com ART Vancouver); ясно (о тексте контракта • [Justice David] Crerar rejected that logic. Under B.C.’s Interpretation Act, “must” is to be construed as imperative, he noted. “Without ambiguity, hypothetical absurdities cannot contort the plain language of the statute,” Crerar wrote, adding that developers who violate the act are subject to criminal, civil, and regulatory punishments. nsnews.com ART Vancouver) |
