This format of report used to be used officially by the Arbitor,
when that was going on, it was typically done with a comment field
something like this:
> Judged TRUE by twg: [as of this message]
(on a side note, should I start publishing these again after cases
are complete? I'm entering them into the database once a month or
so).
On the content itself: nice judgement!
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > ========================================================================
> >
>
>
>
