On 3/18/26 09:55, Nilrem via agora-business wrote:
> On 2/27/26 6:06 AM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> On 2/26/26 11:51, Gregory Hayes via agora-business wrote:
>>> I call for judgment on the following statement: "Galle CAN transfer a
>>> Contratoken to the Contradictory Contract." I submit the text of the
>>> Contradictory Contract as evidence, and the following as arguments:
>>
>> I favor (favour) this case.
>>
> On 2/27/26 1:51 AM, Gregory Hayes via agora-business wrote:
>> I call for judgment on the following statement: "Galle CAN transfer a
>> Contratoken to the Contradictory Contract." I submit the text of the
>> Contradictory Contract as evidence, and the following as arguments:
> I temporarily deputise as Arbitor to assign Janet as judge for this CFJ.
>
> (I'm curious how this one will turn out, it would be a shame if it got
> left behind just because there is no Arbitor at the moment)
>
> -Nilrem
The above-assigned CFJ is judged FALSE.
Arguments:
{
This is a clever attempt at a paradox! Unfortunately, I evidently
attempted something very similar to this years ago. (I had completely
forgotten this, and I only re-discovered it while doing research for
this case.)
In CFJ 3761, Judge G. found that:
{
Since the specification has to be performed by the backing document as
a whole, if internal clauses conflict in setting out the
specification, without providing a mechanism for conflict resolution –
the net effect is that the clauses fail at specification, and are simply
void and without effect due to ambiguity.
}
Given that Rule 2576/5 mirrors the language of Rule 2166 then in effect
(by requiring that the backing document "specify" something), and there
being no relevant change in the law governing what to "specify" means, I
find that this precedent is still in force. (For the avoidance of doubt,
I would likely have found the same de novo: a self-contradictory
specification is no specification at all.)
We now move to how this affects the outcome of the case. The contract is
certainly not "silent" about ownership of Contratokens, so the default
in Rule 2576 does not apply, and the only entities that can own a
Contratoken are those specified by the contract. It is not necessarily
clear whether the contract specifies that Galle can own a Contratoken
(since it is internally self-consistent about that, at least), but, per
the previous holding, it certainly does not specify that the
Contradictory Contract can.
As such, the Contradictory Contract cannot own Contratokens, and Galle
CANNOT transfer a token to the Contradictory Contract.
Judged FALSE.
}
Evidence:
{
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2576/5 (Power=3)
Ownership
Each asset has exactly one owner.
An asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity unless
its backing document specifies that entity can own it. If an
asset's backing document is otherwise silent on which entities can
own it, then it can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts.
An asset "in abeyance" is one whose owner is nonexistent,
indeterminate, or invalid. If an asset would otherwise be in
abeyance, then it is owned by the Lost and Found Department (if
possible) or destroyed (otherwise), subject to modification by its
backing document (provided that the modification either destroys
it or prevents it from being in abeyance). Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Lost and Found Department can own assets of
every type.
Assets owned by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred
or destroyed by any player without objection. Assets owned by the
Lost and Found Department can be transferred or destroyed by the
Executor, as authorized by the Executor's administrative
regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
