Talk:Constructive notice
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
It seems that the lead sentence does not attempt to convey the underlying intent of constructive notice, and in fact seems to imply that damned-if-you-do situation. It seems that a much better introduction would be, "A person who is responsible for determining certain facts is expected to look in the customary places where those facts might be found, and failing that, is charged with all responsibilities that would arise from finding what would have been found." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.170.57 (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 | The contents of the Doctrine of constructive notice page were merged into Constructive notice on 03 July 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Proposed merger
[edit]The article Doctrine of constructive notice is essentially covering the same topic, I don't see the need for them to be separate. The Constructive notice article is older (started in May 2005 compared to Sept. 2012), has the most page views (2505 in the last 30 days, compared to 584) and has other articles linking to it, so it should be the one to stay and Doctrine of constructive notice merged into it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
As there has been no objection to this proposal since November last year, I have gone ahead and merge Doctrine of constructive notice into this article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well done. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)