What will be the outcome of this pressing issue? /forum/read.php?15,3368,3368#msg-3368 Tue, 02 May 2017 04:54:27 +0000 Phorum 5.2.20 /forum/read.php?15,3368,9968#msg-9968 /forum/read.php?15,3368,9968#msg-9968
"Michael Laws
Spelling of Wanganui: Bit irritated that the SST would re-edit today's column and add an 'h' to Wanganui but ... newsflash to ALL news editor. The legislation required to gazette the Minister's decision on the dual spelling of Wangas, HAS NOT HAPPENED. In fact, it will require a special law with that specific purpose and it may not even be introduced until next year. So - it's still officially 'WANGANUI'!"

which then follows by a viewer

"While the Whanganui/Wanganui alternative naming will not be official until the legislation has passed and the name has been Gazetted, as neither name is currently an official name there is no legal reason why either name or both names cannot be used now.Ref: www.linz.govt.nz/placenames/consultation-decisions/a-to-z/whanganui/faq.aspx"]]> Eclipse Closed Stocks Sun, 07 Nov 2010 11:18:32 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4456#msg-4456 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4456#msg-4456
I don't think, however, that simply saying "interpret the contract literally" is the answer. In fact, I don't think there really is "an answer", especially when you are searching for certainty in respect of contracts drafted to cover future, and therefore unknown, events.

Contracts often have latent ambiguities and uncertainties: that's just a risk that every party to a contract has to take, and is one reason why the courts are so busy. If literal interpretation provided certainty, businesses would have picked up on this by now! Of course, some contracts are better written than others. But hindsight is always 20/20. And, to be fair to iPredict, draft contract definitions are regularly posted so that traders can help identify possible fishhooks in advance.

I think, in the end, the whole situation was handled pretty well.]]> Taurusport Closed Stocks Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:17:51 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4452#msg-4452 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4452#msg-4452
My proposal is:

All contracts are completely literal. (eg BOTH=BOTH not BOTH=EITHER)
OTHER stocks cover every other instance.
(For gr) Research done prior to contract being written.

For those that went long on BOTH. The result is what it is. I'm not worried, you did well!

I would hope my proposal would provide certainty in stock investment. Its that simple.]]> LaxTrade Closed Stocks Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:50:18 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4450#msg-4450 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4450#msg-4450 the_master Closed Stocks Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:45:44 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4449#msg-4449 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4449#msg-4449
Where do I sign up??11?!!>??]]> gr Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:34:33 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4447#msg-4447 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4447#msg-4447
Contracts: Meeting of the minds?
I believe after reading the judgement that BOTH became a limited use Catch all. But I believe when these contracts were written on here BOTH was not a designated catch-all. OTHER did that job. So unless the BOTH requirements are matched exactly it is knocked out. The rest of the Contracts go through the same process and if not satisfied exactly, to the contract, Its OTHER.

I believe the frustration felt by those in this forum would disappear if they could rely on a contract much the same as anyone could rely on the wording in any other contract. Ie if it isn't in the contract then it has no place in the discussion. There would be no need for discussion with lawyers, doctors, accountants, mad scientists etc. Save time and possible costs. Yes not everything will fit into the rigid structure I propose, but we would already have OTHER as an option to cover every other possible outcome.

In conclusion, admin, hire me for these tough decisions. I will be on-call anytime and will be happy to discuss all my radical ideas. But my hope is that if this approach is adopted these problems will not show up again and therefore we have a path going forward. I hope this makes sense. Seemed pretty black and white in my head.]]> LaxTrade Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:50:20 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4444#msg-4444 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4444#msg-4444
This statement clearly indicates that both names will not be used:
"The Board will gazette the change following a minor amendment to the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008. The Act currently has the unintentional effect of requiring both alternate names to be used in official documents."

One could also equally argue that CITY.WHANGANUI should close at $1 because this is the official name required to be used by crown entities even though Wanganui is still able to be used as an alternate name.]]> TraderV Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:28:52 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4438#msg-4438 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4438#msg-4438
The contract for BOTH stated:
"For this contract to pay $1, the words Wanganui and Whanganui must appear in the official city name."

Notice the word 'and' is 180 degrees from word 'or' per the official announcement which stated:
"The Minister for Land Information has announced his decision to assign the alternative names Whanganui or Wanganui to the city."

Furthermore, the contract states:
"If the Government announces that either name may be used, and leaves the official name unspecified, that will not cause this contract to close at $1."

Certainly the first part of this clause has been met, being "If the Government announces that either name may be used", but has this part: "and leaves the official name unspecified" been satisfied?

Do we have an official name specified? If an official name has not been specified, then according to the terms of this contract, it should not close at $1. But it isn't that clear cut given the announcement.

Do we have a single official name or two official names? Is a single official name which incorporates both versions of the spelling the same thing as two official names with different spelling? If neither official name incorporates both versions of spelling, have the terms of this contract been met? I believe not. If the official name incorporates both versions (like Aorangi/Mt Cook) then the terms of the contract have been met.

The following statement:
"The Board will gazette the change following a minor amendment to the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008. The Act currently has the unintentional effect of requiring both alternate names to be used in official documents."
also supports that both names are not intended to be part of the official name. It seems the Government want to remove the requirement to use both names.

I don't see an argument for OTHER paying $1 a 'technicality' - I'm not convinced the terms of the BOTH contract have actually been met. I'm happy to stand corrected if the official name meets the definition of the BOTH contract, otherwise I remain unconvinced.....]]> andrew93 Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:13:35 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4435#msg-4435 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4435#msg-4435
I hate to throw punches after the bell, but I don't necessarily agree with the following (from the blog):

Even if today’s announcement is for two official names, to allow a distinction as relatively trivial as the use of the singular in referring to two official names to change a contract’s outcome would in our view be manifestly unjust. The contract expressly allowed for considerable variation in other similarly trivial ways: “super/subscripted letters in those names, the addition of some or all of macron, umlaut, slash or hyphen, will not affect this contract”. Although iPredict did not expressly anticipate the use of official names, in our view inclusion of that possibility would be entirely consistent with other items listed above.

I don't think that 'two official names' (or two 'alternative names', per LINZ) is a trivial departure from the contract. I think it is a fairly substantial departure from the norm of having a dual use in one official name, like Aoraki/Mt Cook. LINZ acknowledged themselves that this was rare, and would require some legislative change to work. Such is not the case for the run of the mill dual name.

Having said that, you note that "Today’s announcement is that the official name of the city currently called Wanganui will be Wanganui and Whanganui" - if indeed the one official name of the city is "Wanganui and Whanganui", then I would accept it as satisfied.

C'est la vie. Thanks again for tidying this one up so speedily.]]> gr Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:42:34 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4434#msg-4434 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4434#msg-4434 pipe42 Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:29:12 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4433#msg-4433 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4433#msg-4433 admin Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:13:38 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4432#msg-4432 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4432#msg-4432 Is it possible all these contracts 'could' finish at $0 because none adequately meet the definition?

No. The CITYNAME stocks form a bundle of mututally exclusive stocks, which by definition cover all the possibilities.]]> pipe42 Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:55:01 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4430#msg-4430 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4430#msg-4430
The actual wording of the contract is:
"This contract pays $1 less the closing price for contracts CITY.WANGANUI, CITY.WHANGANUI and CITY.BOTH."]]> andrew93 Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:42:34 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4429#msg-4429 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4429#msg-4429 TraderV Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:40:52 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4422#msg-4422 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4422#msg-4422 sleemanj Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:49:56 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4421#msg-4421 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4421#msg-4421
For this contract to pay $1, the words Wanganui and Whanganui must appear in the official city name.

If the Government announces that either name may be used, and leaves the official name unspecified, that will not cause this contract to close at $1.]]> TraderV Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:49:13 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4420#msg-4420 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4420#msg-4420 admin Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:47:29 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4419#msg-4419 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4419#msg-4419
Key parts, assuming there's no official transition period:

For this contract to pay $1, the words Wanganui and Whanganui must appear in the official city name. The words may be in any order. Super/subscripted letters in those names, the addition of some or all of macron, umlaut, slash or hyphen, will not affect this contract. This contract will pay $1 for Wanganui-Whanganui, Whanganui/Wanganui. However, compound words (WhanganuiWanganui, for example) will not cause this contract to close at $1.

...

If the Government announces that either name may be used, and leaves the official name unspecified, that will not cause this contract to close at $1.

This reads to me pretty clearly that both words must be used in one official name - and remember that the official name must be gazetted. Specifying two official names, both of which are gazetted, would not and should not satisfy this contract. The discussion around 'alternative' names - especially since we need a legislative change - leads me to think that we're not going to have a BOTH situation here.]]> gr Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:44:02 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4418#msg-4418 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4418#msg-4418 LaxTrade Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:42:42 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4417#msg-4417 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4417#msg-4417
i.e. don't expect to see "Wanganui" gazetted.]]> the_master Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:37:31 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4415#msg-4415 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4415#msg-4415 Economist Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:31:31 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4414#msg-4414 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4414#msg-4414 admin Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:31:27 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4413#msg-4413 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4413#msg-4413
The Contract says "...if the Government announces that the official name of the city of Wanganui will change to Wanganui/Whanganui." The Government has announced.

Other is if "the Government announces a new name for Wanganui other than Whanganui or Wanganui/Whanganui (or equivalent) after one or more transition periods of any length, or makes no decision before 1 January 2011.

Equivalent to this would be the alternative that the Government has announced. This "Other" Contract cannot be interpreted as the correct contract. There is also no transition period and a decision has been made. The Government has announced it is W/Wh.

Both has to be the winner or there is no winner IMHO.]]> Nickk Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:03 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4412#msg-4412 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4412#msg-4412 and Wanganui, which would say OTHER to me.]]> gr Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:26:57 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4411#msg-4411 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4411#msg-4411 either 'Whanganui' or 'Wanganui'

That says Both to me]]> mc2001 Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:22:52 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4410#msg-4410 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4410#msg-4410

• The Both stock exists to cover the case where both names are allowed.
• The official announcement is that both names are allowed.
• QED.

Personally, I blame the large numbers of lawyers and bureaucrats for the confusion here. (:P)]]> pipe42 Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:20:43 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4409#msg-4409 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4409#msg-4409 Artist Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:17:54 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4408#msg-4408 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4408#msg-4408
"the word Whanganui must appear in the city name and Wanganui must not"]]> Sejanus Closed Stocks Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:01:10 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4407#msg-4407 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4407#msg-4407
I'm leaning towards Other quite heavily. With a sprinkle of whanganui just in case the requirement for all crown agencies to use the h means it is the true official name, and the old spelling is permitted just to appease the masses.]]> Artist Closed Stocks Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:59:21 +0000 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4406#msg-4406 /forum/read.php?15,3368,4406#msg-4406
And people think central planning creates certainty!]]> Sejanus Closed Stocks Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:58:38 +0000