Proto 2, substantially longer, addressing woggle's (and others') comments. Thoughts?
Arguments: This "contract" contains TWO blatant self-contradictions. The FIRST CONTRADICTION is in the first four words: "1. This contract is non-binding..." A "non-binding contract" is a contradiction in legal terms, and a meaningless semantic construct. R1742, and R2169, both explicitly and implicitly link the concept of "contract" with the concept of it being binding in law. 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" from M-W online: con·tract 1 a: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable 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). A contract is a contract only as long as it is binding, and when it ceases to be binding by its own mechanisms (or if it never binding), it ceases to be legally enforceable, or have a legal impact on the Rules (for example, it ceases to govern delegations, powers of Attorney, devolution of obligations, transfer of rights and/or duties). The SECOND CONTRADICTION comes from taking clauses 1-3 together: 1. This contract is non-binding, and so it does not impose any contractual obligations whatsoever. 2. comex may act on behalf of any party to this contract by announcement. 3. Each party to this contract allows comex to act on eir behalf by announcement. comex attempts a semantic trick here, by claiming in Clause 1 that a contract imposes no obligations, and wording clauses 2-3 to attempt to avoid any sense of "obligation." Clauses 2-3, in fact, DO impose an obligation on "non-comex" members, an obligation that actions taken by comex on their behalf will be binding unto them, in the same way that a Power of Attorney obligates grantees to be bound by actions taken on their behalf by the grantor. Therefore, Clauses 2-3 DO impose obligations on members, and Clauses 2-3 conflict with Clause 1. So there are (at least) TWO CONTRADICTIONS in the body of X. The question is, when multiple clauses conflict with each other, which clauses have precedence? If clause 1 has precedence over clauses 2-3, then the contract is self-annulling, with Clause 1 annulling the obligations imposed by Clauses 2-3, and X is not a contract by Agoran or common definition, as described in the FIRST CONTRADICTION, above and a judgement of FALSE. If clauses 2-3 have precedence, then they impose obligations on members in spite of the claim of Clause 1, and X is a binding contract subject to all the Rules on binding contracts, leading to a judgement of TRUE. If none of the clauses have precedence, the status of X may be UNDETERMINED (a self-contradictory loop). In the absence of any explicit guidance in the contract, I rely on the game custom (and method for Rules) of using numerical precedence within the body of the contract, and find that Clause 1 has precedence over Clauses 2-3. This contact, by claiming to be non-binding, has precedence over the obligations imposed by Clauses 2-3, is self- annulling, and not a contract. This is also, I find, in the best interests of the game, as tossing a blatantly self-contradictory contract wholly out of the courts as a non-contract is less "nonsense" then picking it apart and looking for sense in its individual pieces. FALSE.
