So is having a surgeon by, to dress his wound lest he bleed to death, but Portia shows no sign of being ready to enforce that. Because that is not in the bond.
ISTM that the part about Shylock having to cut off exactly a pound, in one go, is just something she made up and is not necessary, given the blood exception.
Darn activist judges…
Regards,
Sh[del]ylock[/del]odan
I disagree - what Shylock is really doing is pointing out that the surgeon is both extraneous to the core agreement of the “pound of flesh” and absent from the agreement. Thus, there really isn’t room for a judicial interpretation of the text that would include that requirement.
However, the bond is silent as to the means by which the pound of flesh will be removed from Antonio. (So far as we know.) This is an area in which the contract is ambiguous - any question as to the precise mechanism of removal would therefore be ripe for judicial interpretation. The judge would employ precedents if available, of course, but if this is a case of first impression she would look to documents surrounding the contract to try and ascertain the intent of the parties, and she would also have the right to determine that a given interpretation of the contract would be “unconscionable.” Whether or not you agree with such a determination, I think it’s hard to argue that a finding that a contract permitting a series of cuts (rather than just one) to be unconscionable would be judicial activism as it’s commonly understood.
The language is ambiguous on this point, which means the judge mustinterpret it one way or the other; either the contract permits repeated cuts or it does not.
My wife lost more than a pound of flesh in two places to my dismay. She’s still alive.
The notion that the pound has to be cut off in one go is equally absent from the agreement (AFAWK). Therefore there shouldn’t be room for a judicial interpretation that would include that requirement.
You can say that about anything. The contract doesn’t say anything about the color of the handle of the knife, or what Antonio has had for breakfast that morning, or any other random detail Portia wants to make up and treat as if it were relevant.
The point of the surgeon exchange is to establish that, unless it is in the contract, one cannot impose arbitrary requirements. Having a surgeon is such a requirement - but it doesn’t say so in the bond, and therefore Shylock does not have to abide by it. It does not say in the bond that the pound has to be cut off all at once either, yet Portia does impose that requirement.
The notion that “cutting it off all at once” is a requirement is like invalidating a debt because the person counted the bills into his creditor’s hand one at a time instead of handing them over all at once.
Regards,
Shodan
Wait! I thought Portia was the responant’s attorney. She was the Judge?!
More or less. The ultimate authority to make a judgement is with the Duke, but he is obligated to rule according to the laws of Venice:
The Duke has requested the opinion of a learned doctor of laws, Bellario. Since he is ill, he has sent his law clerk Balthasar, who is actually Portia in disguise:
Yes to both; but no one knows her true identity.
The Duke is really the one who is making the decision on how to enforce the contract. As long as she gives him a rationale to deny it, it gives him an out. So it may not matter where the information came from. At any rate, she gets away with the deception; she only reveals it later to Bassiano and Antonio.