Comments on: Did Monster Energy Make A ‘Dope’ Contract With DJ Z-Trip? Nope (Forbes Cross-Post) https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/11/did-monster-energy-make-a-dope-contract-with-dj-z-trip-nope-forbes-cross-post.htm Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Bill Bentnickel https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/11/did-monster-energy-make-a-dope-contract-with-dj-z-trip-nope-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-634 Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:26:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=11086#comment-634 Not clear from the opinion: How long did the Swollen Members last? Do we need to call Dr. Dre?

]]> By: Theperkyone https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/11/did-monster-energy-make-a-dope-contract-with-dj-z-trip-nope-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-633 Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:43:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=11086#comment-633 The key is the context, not the terminology. Both “dope” and “awesome” are words that are ambiguous and whose meaning can change with the context. In CX there was a preexisting contract, an explicit desire to amend that contract, and a counteroffer. So the most natural reading of “awesome” in that case is as a “Yes.” Here, however, the context is entirely different. There is no preexisting contract on this issue. There are no clear terms for a new contract and so it is a huge leap to claim that the word “dope” means an acceptance of a contract.

The case doesn’t hinge in my view on the abstract meaning of the word “dope” but how it is used in context. So the lesson I take from these cases is: context matters. English is a contextal language and words have meaning only in context.

]]>