On Thursday 23 October 2008 03:40:51 pm Alexander Smith wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > I hereby initiate an equity case regarding the Protection Racket > > contract, the parties to which are Wooble, ehird, and BobTHJ. > > ehird and BobTHJ are, and have been for quite some time, in > > material breach of Section 11 of the contract by remaining Supine > > and thus ineligible to judge CFJs. > > Heh, as a Favourholder I wanted to do that myself, but couldn't due > to not being a Don. Maybe we should change the rules so equity > cases can be made against arbitrary contracts, or at least > arbitrary public contracts?
I think we should create a more general solution. Rather than each person be either a party to a given contract or not, there should be a third state, that a person can be a witness to a given contract. Witnesses are considered parties for the purposes of equity, but a contract CANNOT impose obligations on witnesses. For a contract like a bank or the Protection Racket, assetholders should be witnesses; for a pledge, all first-class persons should be witnesses by default.
