• Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Just because the government defined it that way 60 years ago when software updates weren’t even a thing doesn’t mean it makes sense to call a user-applicable fix a recall. It’s literally in the name. Is it being re-called back to the manufacturer or not

      • Lojcs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yes, and as I said it is inaccurate. Legalese can be updated to better match the meaning of the word. Why is that such an unacceptable concept?

        Edit: I’m really worked up about this. Seriously, why is changing the term that unimaginable to you people?

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          It’s seems like you’re saying “we should change the legal term of art ‘payment intangible’ because it’s something that is general intangible under which the account debtor’s principal obligation is a monetary obligation.”

          But that’s already what “payment intangible” means.