Chapter 21

Defective Replies or Faults of a Reply

That which is unknown, contradictory, too brief, too verbose, ambiguous, impossible, unclear, irrelevant, and excessively faulty... // K_173 //

...not comprehensive, with misplaced words, of hidden meaning, confusing, requiring interpretation, and insubstantial—such a reply is not praised by the wise. // K_174 //

A reply with misplaced words, that is not comprehensive, has a hidden meaning, is confusing, requires interpretation, and is insubstantial does not achieve its own purpose. // K_175 //

A reply that is ignorant of a thousand signs and forms, or of convention, or is spoken in a different language, is an unknown reply. // K_176 //

"It was returned by me in my childhood," and "It was not returned by me"—when one speaks thus, it should be known as a contradictory reply. // K_177 //

To say, "This man was defeated by me before in this matter," but then to say only, "by me before," is traditionally considered a deficient reply. // K_178 //

When one should say, "It was received," but instead says, "A transaction was done by me with him," regarding a thing received before, that is too verbose. // K_179 //

When one should say, "It is to be given by me," but says, "It is not to be given by me," such a reply is then known by the wise in legal proceedings as ambiguous. // K_180 //

"By this relative strength, violence was established before"—this they consider unstated, and thus it is called irrelevant. // K_181 //

When it is stated, "A thousand and a half was given by me to him," the reply, "Half of that was returned," is traditionally considered not comprehensive. // K_182 //

As long as the plaintiff has not properly established the action, the reply, "It was not received by me before," is called one with misplaced words. // K_183 //

"Will anyone give a lotus that has not been received?"—such a reply is said in legal proceedings to have a hidden meaning. // K_184 //

"Why should it always be given by him? It should be given by me."—this is called a confusing reply by those who know. // K_185 //

A reply such as, "A crow has no teeth," or "It has teeth," is in truth considered insubstantial and not a proper reply. // K_186 //

A counter-plaint that is too brief in relation to the matter at hand, unclear, deficient or excessive, irrelevant, not comprehensive, insubstantial, or ambiguous should not be advanced. // K_187 //

That which is ambiguous, different from the subject matter, too brief, too verbose, or applicable to only a part of the plaint, is not a reply at all. // K_188 //

A reply that is partly an admission, partly a special plea, and partly a denial is no reply at all, due to the mixture. // K_189 //

In a single dispute, there cannot be two procedures for the two litigants, nor can there be a successful outcome for both, nor two procedures in one case. // K_190 //