On Thursday 24 January 2008 17:20:44 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 9:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think this still leaves small contracts in a bad state under the rules,
> > given that amending, terminating and changing the parties (except by
> > adding new parties (?(*))) to contracts with <= 1 parties basically can't
> > happen, except through pledge's without-objection mechanism.
>
> That's really a separate issue. To fix it, I think we should just
> replace "by agreement between all parties" with something more
> number-neutral, such as "by obtaining the consent of all parties".
>
> > ((*) Precedenct appears to be that joining new contracts is unregulated
> > except when the contract makes a prohibition against it.
>
> If by unregulated you mean "any person can join with unanimous
> agreement between emself and the existing parties", then I agree, but
> your proposal seems to enshrine a different interpretation. I haven't
> specifically noticed any contracts using an implicit "join by
> announcement" mechanism, but if there are, I would assert they don't
> work that way.
CFJ 1796 says that "[p]recedent holds that agreement is not regulated and that
contracts are entered into by agreement" which thus allowed comex to enter
into an agreement that was apparently already a contract and apparently
without explicit consent of the members of the agreement.
>
> > But I don't know if it's
> > that clear what a mechanism for adding a party has to look like to fall
> > under the forming-an-agreement interpretation (fine for 0 and 1 party
> > contracts) and what it has to look like to fall under the "changing the
> > set of parties" (requires agreement, which can be manifested in the
> > contract).)
>
> I don't see the problem. IMO, it should ultimately be left up to the
> contract, not to Agora, to decide whether a change to it is valid or
> not.
I agree. But I don't think under the current rules that a 0 or 1 party
contract can make such decisions since they cannot manifest the state of
agreement between all parties.
> > [Prevent annoyances like "This contract CAN be amended by announcement
> > if Goldbach's Conjecture is true."]
>
> Why? It's their contract. Let them screw it up in weird ways if they want
> to.
My intention here is to dissaude people from trying to create situations where
it may UNDECIDABLE whether, for example, a contract is a player or, more
simply, whether the Notary violated eir duty to have eir report include the
text of each public contract.
For example (I do NOT agree to be bound by this alleged contract):
{{ 1. This is a public contract governed by the rules of Agora.
2. Any party CAN amend this contract without 2 Objections of any party.
3. Any party amending this contract without 2 Objections of any party is
IMPOSSIBLE.
4. No clause of this contract takes precedence over any other clause,
except this one, which takes precedence over every other clause.
}}
... and then amending (with 1 party objecting to make sure it doesn't fall
under "agreement of all parties" in an obvious way) this contract to fit the
criteria of a partnership...
... and then having it register.
Goldbach's conjecture I guess is a bad example of this because that's pretty
clearly UNDETERMINED and not UNDECIDABLE and thus isn't much of a problem.
-woggle
