Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2598-99 assigned to coppro
Sean Hunt wrote: > Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> This feels wrong somehow. The first two paragraphs appear to be arguing >> for TRUE, but then the last one contradicts their conclusions without >> refuting their arguments. >> >> In light of the reasoning presented in the second paragraph of this >> judgement, how do you find inclarity as to whether immibis intended to >> be bound? > > I find it unambiguous that e intended to allow ais523 to use eir script > to publish the contract, but there is no actual indication that e > intended for a contract to be formed - rather, the intent was to see if > the contract would be formed. R101 requires consent, not intent. If e wanted 'to see if the contract would be formed', e must have considered and accepted the possibility that e would become bound by the contract. If e considered but did not accept the possibility, e would not have cooperated with the experiment; if e did not consider the possibility, e could not have had the 'intent ... to see if the contract would be formed'.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2598-99 assigned to coppro
Benjamin Caplan wrote: > This feels wrong somehow. The first two paragraphs appear to be arguing > for TRUE, but then the last one contradicts their conclusions without > refuting their arguments. > > In light of the reasoning presented in the second paragraph of this > judgement, how do you find inclarity as to whether immibis intended to > be bound? I find it unambiguous that e intended to allow ais523 to use eir script to publish the contract, but there is no actual indication that e intended for a contract to be formed - rather, the intent was to see if the contract would be formed.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2598-99 assigned to coppro
Sean Hunt wrote: > Sorry for the BlackBerry reply; I know it'll look hideous, so no quoted text. > > 2599 has the same judgment as 2598 as R101 says that no contract is > formed without explicit, willful consent. Therefore if inmibis (sp?) > agreed to the contract, e had no way out. > > In the circumstances, it is clear eir consent was willful as e > specifically encouraged ais523 to try binding emself to a contract in > ##nomic. Furthermore, the text was very explicit. However, we must > realize that the consent required by R101 does not mean the person has > to say explicitly that e consents - rather, e performs some action > explicitly to indicate eir consent (consent may be implicit, but only > if the implication is caused explicitly.) Therefore, the fact that the > script provided an explicit text is immaterial. > > It is unclear if inmibis ever truly intended to be bound, thus e > lacked explicit consent. As such, I judge these CFJs to both be FALSE. This feels wrong somehow. The first two paragraphs appear to be arguing for TRUE, but then the last one contradicts their conclusions without refuting their arguments. In light of the reasoning presented in the second paragraph of this judgement, how do you find inclarity as to whether immibis intended to be bound?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2598-99 assigned to coppro
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > (consent may be implicit, but only > if the implication is caused explicitly.) Aaaarrrggh... -- -c.
