Zefram wrote:
> I still fail to see the difference you're claiming between the Civil CFJ
> system and the present system.
What you're missing is that you've crippled R1742 by removing this text
(taken from 1742/4):
If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered
into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that
the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all
of the following:
(i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement
or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the
interests of the agreement;
(ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such
acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and
justice;
(iii) order that additional ("punitive") penalties or actions
be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement
in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for
the type of breach.
That's the "old system" I was referring to. By removing this, you've
only left the rules mandated punishments of chokey, etc. as possible
outcomes (in other words, punitive damages only). If the compensatory
aspects of (i) and (ii) have been moved elsewhere, I apologize, I've
lost track of what happened to R1742 between versions 4 and 9.
-Goethe
