Appeal: Denied Entreaty for Prior Ponderance II (Ch. 2025)

[Nim]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR PRIOR PONDERANCE

Honorable Chancellors, I humbly request prior ponderance and a ruling regarding the following unsettled matter of law:

I. INTERPRETATION OF AMBIGUOUS TEMPORAL REFERENCES
When a temporal marker, such as 'the day begun,' or other references to the passage of a day are presented without an explicit timezone designation, what presumption, rule of interpretation, or evidentiary burden shall govern its understanding for legal purposes, particularly concerning the commencement or cessation of relevant periods or actions?


Respectfully submitted to the Chancery on May 21, 2025,
Nim

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
REFUSAL OF WRIT
​

The Chancery has deliberated and decided that this question is not one that interprets any question of law. For a Writ of Prior Ponderance to be granted, the Chancery must behold an entreaty posed that is: (1) Valid as a question, (2) important enough to demand the attention of this court, (3) written in good faith, (4) ambiguous, and (5) a question of interpretation.

We find that this question is not a question of interpretation of any law or constitutional principle, nor do we believe this question is important enough for us to grant a ruling at this time. Though the timing of contracts certainly may have implications of varying degrees of severity, it is important to remember that contracts are a beast of the contractors' own creation. Parties should seek to clarify as much as they can within contracts, and should specify basic pillars of their agreement like temporal markers. Any direct law on this matter should come from Parliament at this time, unless (or until) this question appears naturally in the course of litigation for us to evaluate once again.​