On 2/3/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A second point made by comex is that "plenty of contracts have been
> created that do not impose obligations". However, this is the first
> time any of those have been tested in Agoran Courts (and in fact, if a
> contract claimed to "not impose obligations", there would be no equity
> case that could be brought), so it is quite possible that none of these
> were proper contracts.
I was pretty much referring to the contract from CFJs 1833-5, which
(in my opinion) does not impose obligations, and has been tested in
court-- but by the definition in your judgement, in fact it does
impose obligations.
for reference:
{{
1. This is a contract governed by the rules of Agora. Its parties are the
AFO and comex. Its set of parties CANNOT be changed.
2. The AFO can by announcement dissolve or amend the contract.
3. By joining this contract, comex authorizes the AFO to submit CFJs on eir
behalf by announcement. E agrees that this authorization is not impaired
by the amendment of the contract, or eir subsequent refusal thereof.
}}
