On Jan 24, 2008 10:55 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
It was not already a contract. Murphy had posted this, with the apparent interpretation that e would enter into the agreement with anybody: > I agree to be bound by the following contract: > > 1) The name of this contest is Bake The Traitor. > > 2) The contestmaster of this contest is Murphy. > > 3) Any contestant other than comex who becomes a contestant > ceases to be a contestant one second later. > > 4) The contestmaster may award an equal number of points to > all contestants by announcement, subject to the limits > imposed by the rules. > > > [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. As you noted, in the case of Goldbach's Conjecture, this would be grounds for UNDETERMINED, not UNDECIDABLE, but in general I see your point. I don't think that regulating contract changes is sufficient to prevent that however; for example, a contract could, in theory, be undecidable with regard to whether it devolves its obligations onto its "partners". -root
