The respondents argued that the clause was silent as to by whom the theft had to be committed before the bank would be immune from a claim.

This was so, the respondents argued, because no one could contract out of liability for deliberately committed dishonest acts.

One respondent argued in support of time limits as follows:

Second, respondents argue that the City could have adopted a different interpretation of the "rule of three" that would have produced less discriminatory results.

But the respondent argues for a much more fundamental difference.

Some respondents to the poll would argue with that statement.

The respondents argue that Crossley is only capable of identifying the particular computer that has been involved in copyright infringement.

The City disputed this duty; the respondents argued that its policy was arbitrary and discriminatory.

In effect, the respondents argued that refusing treatment and requesting that their doctor assist them in ending their life were "the same thing."

However, it raised serious concerns in business quarters, and respondents argued that because of the complexity of the issue further careful analysis was needed.