Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, comex wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Sean Hunt<ride...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'm saying "I dislike this contract, because it is binding to anyone who >>> becomes party to it." >> I think non-binding contracts were judged to spontaneously implode at >> some point. > > It's just an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp. Basically, any legal status > concerning non-binding arrangements are IRRELEVANT to Agoran courts (and > thus aren't a back door to rules that allow "contracts" in general to > do things. > > I suppose you could make a contract nearly non-binding by having every > requirement be a SHOULD, but that's not the same thing (and SHOULDs in > equity may be binding in the spirit, anyway). > > -G.
I don't have any problem with the contrac imposing obligations. My problem is with the lack of the ability to leave the contract, though I believe it should require significant advanced notice,
