Two Interesting Links:

Two thought-provoking links for the day:

• Over at his blog, Adamsdrafting, Ken Adams has an interesting post about the admissibility of expert testimony in the context of ambiguous contract terms.  Whether a contract is ambiguous is a legal question. Does that mean that, without regard to context, expert testimony is never admissible to help a generalist judge determine whether the words are reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations?

• Over at Drug and Device Law, a "spirited off-line discussion" (of which I was a part) generated an interesting post regarding ethics in the adversarial system.  In short, we all know that sometimes in advocacy we win a point we should lose because our adversary defaults and somehow forfeits the point that she should have won.  What are the ethical implications of taking obviously-wrong-if-but-only-if--objected-to positions? Is there a difference between, say, introducing hearsay and removing a case late?  Click here to join the discussion.