Results 1 to 5 of 5
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Switzerland

    • Join Date: Aug 2009
    • Posts: 1,676
    #1

    Clarity

    "They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC."

    Is it clear that "and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC." is one of the Court's holdings and not what "they" submitted? If not, how should I make it clear?

    Would the following be a possibility?

    They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding (i) that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and (ii) that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

    Thanks a lot.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Switzerland

    • Join Date: Aug 2009
    • Posts: 1,676
    #2

    Re: Clarity

    Anyone?

    Thanks a lot!

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: May 2010
    • Posts: 577
    #3

    Re: Clarity

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasmin165 View Post
    "They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC."

    Is it clear that "and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC." is one of the Court's holdings and not what "they" submitted? If not, how should I make it clear?

    Would the following be a possibility?

    They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding (i) that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and (ii) that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

    Thanks a lot.
    You've cleared up that ambiguity but the subject of 'in holding' is the CFI as it stands. Should it not be the Court? In which case: ', which held'. PS: I would probably use the present tense in (i) and (ii), especially if those rulings are still in effect.

    Hope that helps!

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Switzerland

    • Join Date: Aug 2009
    • Posts: 1,676
    #4

    Re: Clarity

    Quote Originally Posted by bertietheblue View Post
    You've cleared up that ambiguity but the subject of 'in holding' is the CFI as it stands. Should it not be the Court? In which case: ', which held'. PS: I would probably use the present tense in (i) and (ii), especially if those rulings are still in effect.

    Hope that helps!
    I made a mistake in my original post. I should've written: "Is it clear that ... is one of the CFI's holdings....?"

    Are you saying that I should add (i) and (ii)?

    Thanks.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: May 2010
    • Posts: 577
    #5

    Re: Clarity

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasmin165 View Post
    I made a mistake in my original post. I should've written: "Is it clear that ... is one of the CFI's holdings....?"

    Are you saying that I should add (i) and (ii)? More than should - you need to
    unless you reword or the sense could be 'they submitted ... that the anti-doping rules ...'

    Thanks.
    Bertie

Similar Threads

  1. [Essay] grammatical and clarity errors
    By krishnau in forum Editing & Writing Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-May-2010, 21:37
  2. Clarity
    By davidmapedi in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17-Aug-2009, 15:28
  3. [Grammar] Urgent: clarity on Q
    By Wannaknow in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-Jul-2009, 15:04
  4. I need grammar & clarity help
    By Unregistered in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17-Sep-2007, 03:43
  5. clarity
    By Srdjan in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13-Aug-2005, 14:04

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •