Never mind, this was really 36_6_4. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:22 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, there are two CFJ 3644s. This one and the one regarding Humiliating > Public Reminders (which appears as an Annotation in the FLR). Was this > resolved? > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:24 PM 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. >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> > > -- > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
