comex wrote: >2. The AFO can by announcement dissolve or amend the contract.
This means that the AFO can bind comex to arbitrary terms, including ones that directly impose obligations. There is therefore an indirect obligation here. >3. By joining this contract, comex authorizes the AFO to submit CFJs on eir >behalf by announcement. We seem to be developing a theory of contracts where a clause like this is treated as an obligation on the person on whose behalf another is authorised to act. I also note that nowhere in the contract does it disclaim its binding contract nature. We have a couple of interesting questions to resolve about contracts, in the light of CFJ 1892. Principally, if an agreement is intended to be a binding contract, but does not in fact impose any obligations of any kind (including indirect obligations or authorisations of agency), is it binding? I suggest that it is best treated as binding, despite the lack of anything that the parties are bound to, as this avoids the need to decide what qualifies as an obligation. If, on the other hand, an agreement without obligations is ruled to be thereby non-binding, we need to decide whether an authorisation of agency is an obligation for this purpose. Obviously we're in easier territory if it is, but the theoretical basis for treating it this way needs to be worked out. -zefram
