On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:22:21 -0400, Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> wrote:
Yeah of course, I didn't say it correctly so I reformulate:
IN CASE OF financial|contract's datation, be careful :-)
> Of course it's legally correct. One month after September 15 is October
> 15 by anyone's definition.
>
> The contract termination issue is not due to miscalculation of "plus one
> month" but to mistaken inclusion of the +1 month date within the contract
> period. The contract needs to be understood as "from date X through but
> not including X + '1 month'::interval'". The date X + '1
> month'::interval still is what it is, e.g., October 15 in your example.
>
--
Above all else -- sky.
