On 2/20/2020 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2/20/20 7:08 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> So when R1742 was re-implemented (replacing R2520-2527), we still ended up >> with "Agora = agreement" and "contract = agreement" but the link "Agora = >> contract", while not inconsistent with the R1742 text, was never re-created. >> >> -G. >> > > I don't really buy this. My reading of the current rule is "if it's an > agreement, and it was made with the intention that it would be binding > upon the parties and governed by the rules, it's a contract". The > definition in the rules doesn't depend on whether something was a > contract in the past. >
So if the 2017 definition of "contract" clearly did NOT include the Rules, then (when the rules changed in 2018) there had to be a "moment of becoming a contract" for the rules, presumably when the 2018 proposal was adopted. However, making something a contract requires someone's explicit consent - how was the consent given? You could say something like "well, by the voting" but that doesn't sound like explicit consent to create a contract to me. Also fun: the first clause of the 2018 proposal (8054) was: "Destroy all contracts". -G.
