ais523 wrote: >>> * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the >>> person was aware of or could easily have found out that an >>> attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, >>> and could have ceased to agree to the document in question >>> during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no >>> effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other >>> than the ceasing to agree itself. >> This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership >> is restricted to parties. > Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a contract > specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, is that a good > thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk of allowing more > Protection-racket-like mousetraps.
If a contract can reach outside itself to specify direct penalties, then something's wrong right there. A more interesting case would be requiring the remaining parties to act against the ex-party's interests (vote against eir proposals, etc.). The other side of this is that a party who owns assets backed by the contract and restricted to its parties, and who didn't object to an amendment but forgot to explicitly consent, would automatically cease to agree (and, ironically, lose those assets).
