The contracts infrastructure does not forclose such an arraignment. I made a ruling when the Agencies infrastructure was in place to the effect that having an explicit way to do something didn't stop people from doing things an earlier implicit way.
-Aris On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:45 PM Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > We have a CFJ claiming that Powers of Attorney agreements are valid as > a matter of common law. Obviously all the Contracts infrastructure > forecloses such an agreement because of all the specifications in it. > But they would presumably work afterwards. See CFJs 3474 and 2397 > (judged by you) and 1719 > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > >> Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses. > >> And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about > >> anymore. So I'm making the following point. > > > > I wholly agree with you. But can we add in a very simple stub that > > says something like "players can make agreements, and the agreements > > can include act-on-behalf" or something equally simple to empower > > that? > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
