Source: p 120, The Law of Contract, 5 ed (2012), by O’Sullivan and Hilliard
6.72. High Trees is in many ways a weak precedent. The case is so influential and well known that students often forget that it was a first instance decision, which was '(remarkably)' delivered unreserved, and that all the discussion about the binding nature of the promise to reduce the rent during the war years was strictly obiter (described by Arden LJ in Collier v P&MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd (2007) as Denning J’s ‘brilliant obiter dictum’)
1. Without reservations; complete: 2. Frank and open: 3. Not set apart for a particular purpose or booked in advance:
'(remarkably)' implies that the author of the above quote was surprised, so does the quote above mean definition 1, that Denning's decision was shockingly complete? But how does it make sense for judgments to be lacking, unless this is what the author implicitly alleges?
Or definition 2? But then the author would imply that at least some other judgement is disingenuous?
Or defnition 3? But how is this judgement 'not ... for a particular purpose'?