On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Charles Reiss wrote: > I don't think relying on an ordinary-language definition of contract is > warranted because R1742 seems to define it. I think you should also examine > the possiblity that the X agreement is a contract but is binding (in spite of > its text).
The rules define a "binding agreement" as a contract, but it could be argued that the rules don't define a "non-binding agreement", and that a "non-binding agreement" could be a contract by common definition. So looking at the common definition of "contract", we find that it is also a "binding agreement", so a "non-binding agreement" isn't a contract in either the Rules (which define a contract as an agreement which binds) or in common terms (which do the same). Still, you have a point, there are two choices: 1. "Non-binding contract" is nonsense, so a "contract" document has no legal status whatsoever if it claims to be non-binding (just like "decrease by -1" is meaningless, CFJ 1826). The claim of a contract to be non-binding self-annuls the contract. 2. "Non-binding" fails to modify the word "contract" (as a contract can't be non-binding) but the document is still a contract and a binding one (and membership must follow rules of R101 consent, etc.) I'm leaning towards #1, because if a document claims to be something, you shouldn't pick and choose pieces of the claim to make it correct. Still, I'll ponder longer and take more comments. -Goethe
