On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of >> "agreement" >> referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as >> there is no qualifying text to the contrary). > > The use of the word "binding" in R101 is not qualifying text? I > thought it was clear that R101 is referring to contracts, whereas > R2157 is referring to agreement of opinion.
R2157 refers to an agreement to deliver a legal opinion. In the absence of further definition of "binding", it is quite likely that agreeing to consent to the posting of such an opinion is binding. This particular type of agreement is made under R2157 so it is not unreasonable to say it is binding under the rules. Even without that, see CFJ 1325, in particular the judge's point (2) of what constitutes "intent that an agreement be binding", this is still quite relevant as "binding" is similarly defined now as then. Certainly I have intended my own agreements with others on judicial panels to be binding and subject to R101 protections, but I can't speak for my fellow panel members, and as CFJ 1325 suggests we can only test this if a dispute arises. Changing this to Support would clarify a whole lot of things here. -Goethe
