Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) [1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues.
The ambiguity effect is a cognitive tendency where decision making is affected by a lack of information, or "ambiguity". [1] The effect implies that people tend to select options for which the probability of a favorable outcome is known, over an option for which the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown.
An ambiguous case is You must speak Spanish. The primary meaning would be the deontic meaning ("You are required to speak Spanish.") but this may be intended epistemically ("It is surely the case that you speak Spanish"). Epistemic modals can be analyzed as raising verbs, while deontic modals can be analyzed as control verbs.
In decision theory and economics, ambiguity aversion (also known as uncertainty aversion) is a preference for known risks over unknown risks.An ambiguity-averse individual would rather choose an alternative where the probability distribution of the outcomes is known over one where the probabilities are unknown.
Usually, semantic and syntactic ambiguity go hand in hand. The sentence "We saw her duck" is also syntactically ambiguous. Conversely, a sentence like "He ate the cookies on the couch" is also semantically ambiguous. Rarely, but occasionally, the different parsings of a syntactically ambiguous phrase result in the same meaning.
In the case of a patent ambiguity, parol evidence is admissible to explain only what has been written, not what the writer intended to write. For example, in Saunderson v Piper (1839), [ 7 ] where a bill of exchange was drawn in figures for £245 and in words for two hundred pounds, evidence that "and forty-five" had been omitted by mistake was ...
In this case, the combinations of BB, BG and GB are assumed equally likely to have resulted in the boy walking companion, and thus the probability that the other child is also a boy is 1 / 3 . In 1991, Marilyn vos Savant responded to a reader who asked her to answer a variant of the Boy or Girl paradox that included beagles. [ 5 ]
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel." [1] Legal scholars have criticized this case stating that the "bright line" rule established under Edwards v.