On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 13:13, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> c. wrote:
>
>> iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a
>> binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound
>> by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a
>> party, the absence of a person's explicit, willful consent
>> shall be considered a refusal.
>>
>> [iii. add the privilege to refuse to be bound by an amendment. a
>> person must explicitly waive this, which is unlikely to happen with,
>> say, the Points Party]
>
> How would this draw a line between mousetraps and not-intended-as-scams
> contract amendments that some parties don't like (e.g. W3O and only one
> party objects)? In particular, consider what happens if Y agrees to
> "X can act on behalf of Y to Z", then X scam-removes "to Z".
>
Semi-related proto-proto: Make all acting on behalf that does not
violate a R101 right permissible but not legal, with a minor
infraction for doing so unintentionally without consent, and a serious
(10+ rest penalty) infraction for willfully doing so without consent.
Contract then grant consent to act on behalf, not permission.
