Bugger, got my time zones mixed up. This was, of course, judged at 10:24, not 
11:24.

This is my first ever CFJ judgement - please do not hesitate to say if I got 
something wrong.

-twg


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:24 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> 
wrote:

> ============================== CFJ 3644 ==============================
>
> Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours.
>
> ========================================================================================================================================
>
> Caller: G.
> Barred: D. Margaux
>
> Judge: twg
> Judgement: TRUE
>
> ============================================================
>
> History:
>
> Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19 UTC
> Assigned to twg: 01 Oct 2018 03:01 UTC
> Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24 UTC
>
> =================================================================================================================================
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> 1.  Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts?
>     It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake
>     deals" be backed up by Agoran courts.
>
> 2.  I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works -
>     by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and
>     is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows
>     it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked.
>
>     ========================================================================
>
>     Judge twg's Arguments:
>
>     The caller refers to the following thread of messages:
>
>     On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my
> > > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other
> > > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to 
> > > transfer
> > > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September.
> > > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings wouldn't
> > > survive and that would be a shame.
> > > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the 
> > > economy
> > > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who claimed
> > > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them back
> > > so I don't have to start from scratch.
> > > ~Corona
> >
> > --
> > D. Margaux
>
> This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's
> messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts",
> for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the
> caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been
> INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on
> behalf are contracts and zombiehood.
>
> Rule 1742/19 states, in part:
>
> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
> is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
> by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
> parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
> parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
> parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
> agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
> contract.
>
> We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of
> requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a
> contract:
>
> 1.  Is it an "agreement"?
> 2.  Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it?
> 3.  Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be
>     binding upon them and governed by the rules?
>
>     I will investigate each of these requirements in turn.
>
>     First, do these message constitute an "agreement" between Corona and
>     D. Margaux? Rule 1742 says that "agreement includes both consent and
>     agreement specified by contract". However, to apply this as a definition
>     of a countable noun would suggest that "an agreement" can mean either
>     "a consent" or "an agreement specified by contract" - the first being
>     nonsensical and the second a circular definition. This court therefore
>     believes that the intent of this sentence is to define the action of
>     agreement, viz. the method by which a contract may be modified or
>     terminated, and recommends that Rule 1742 be amended to reduce the
>     confusion caused by this terminology.
>
>     Lacking a rule-bast definition for an "agreement", we thus turn to past
>     judicial precedent. In CFJ 3315, faced also with the problem of the lack
>     of definition for this word, the Honourable Judge scshunt noted that the
>     rules clearly assumed the existence of the external concept of an
>     "agreement", and held that:
>
>     ...given the lack of reference to agreements within the rules, it
>     appears to be that the interpretation of "agreement" in this CFJ
>     and in the rules should be given maximum latitude, so djanatyn's
>     statement can be interpreted as an agreement (such an
>     interpretation being of questionable value for any purpose other
>     than the analysis of this inquiry, however).
>
>     This court sees no reason to overturn the precedent set in CFJ 3315,
>     and therefore confirms the Honourable Judge scshunt's ruling. It is
>     clear that both Corona and D. Margaux believed this exchange of messages
>     to constitute a contract, as both took actions on the assumption that
>     D. Margaux's action to transfer Corona's liquid assets to emself was
>     EFFECTIVE; and therefore this exchange matched their understandings
>     of the concept of an "agreement". The first requirement for the
>     exchange to be considered a contract is therefore met.
>
>     Secondly, did both Corona and D. Margaux consent to the agreement?
>     "Consent" is explicitly defined by Rule 2519/0, "Consent":
>
>     A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
>     as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This
>     agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from
>     context that the person wanted the agreement to take place.
>
>     Corona stated that e "g[a]ve permission" to any player to fulfill the
>     other half of the agreement. This is an unambiguous statement of
>     consent. D. Margaux, meanwhile, attempted to perform an action that
>     would be POSSIBLE only if e did, in fact, consent to the agreement;
>     game custom is that this constitutes valid implied consent. Both Corona
>     and D. Margaux were thus consenting parties to the agreement.
>
>     Finally, did both Corona and D. Margaux intend for the agreement to be
>     binding upon them and governed by the rules? Again, their later actions
>     confirm that they believed (and hence intended for) their agreement to
>     have been a contract, which by definition would have been binding upon
>     them and governed by the rules.
>
>     The above requirements all having been met, I judge CFJ 3644 TRUE.
>
>     ========================================================================
>


Reply via email to