TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
make sense under real world contract law, but Agoran contracts can
also function like corporations.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO. Contracts are
> written as entities that can gain and lose members at will, but there’s no
> clear way to bootstrap a contract.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Gaelan wrote:
> >>> TTttPF
> >>>
> >>> Also, I create the following contract: {
> >>> Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s behalf
> >> as described below.
> >>>
> >>> Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions,
> >> subject to the following conditions:
> >>> * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a
> >> message to a discussion forum
> >>> * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24 hours
> >>> * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by sending
> >> a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was > not labelled as a
> >> draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
> >>> * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after the
> >> message to the discussion forum
> >>>
> >>> Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
> >>> }
> >>
> >> I join/agree to this contract.
> >>
> >> -twg
> >>
> >
> > I CFJ { As a result of the quoted messages, Gaelan and twg are parties to a
> > contract with the text in Gaelan's message. }
> >
> > Arguments: The rules explicitly prohibit a contract with only party.
> > Therefore, even if Gaelan's ISTID would succeed, e could not have made a
> > contract containing only one party, and if e did, the rules would have
> > destroyed it. On the other hand, e clearly expressed the intent to be bound
> > by the contract, and therefore arguably twg's acceptance was actually what
> > brought such a contract into existence.
> >
> > Alexis
>
