Peekee wrote:
>Would this Agreement be sufficient to create a partnership
It certainly would not have been until today, because it does not clearly
devolve its obligations onto the parties. Now, with the definition of
partnership in R2145, it is possible that clause 2's reference to the
concept of partnership implicitly achieves the devolution of obligations.
However, the agreement still doesn't explicate who the members of the
partnership (as opposed to the parties to the agreement) are. If there
were more than two parties then the membership would be ambiguous.
It'd be better to make these things explicit. I suggest replacing clause
2 with
2. This agreement is a partnership. The parties shall ensure that the
partnership satisfies all obligations that it incurs under the rules.
which is about the minimum required under the current rules.
Also better to explicate that the agreement is subject to Agoran law:
0. This is a binding agreement governed by the rules of Agora.
There remains the question of whether a non-player can effectively enter
into a R1742 agreement. There is a reasonable theory that the rules are
categorically binding only on players, and so none of the enforcement
mechanisms in R1742 can make an agreement binding on a non-player.
In that case it is doubtful that the agreement would qualify for R2145's
reference to "a binding agreement". This has yet to be tested in court.
-zefram
