Ian Kelly wrote: >But does such dissolution prevent anybody else from agreeing to be >bound by it and forming the contract once again?
That's one of the things I was wondering about. If not, I believe the new agreement would be a different contract from the first one. Then the phrase "the Bake The Traitor agreement" (as used in CFJs 1796-1797) is potentially ambiguous. I think it comes down to the interpretation of Murphy's "I agree to be bound by ...". Was e agreeing to create a single contract only, with potentially many parties? Or just a single contract with exactly one other party? Or multiple independent two-party contracts with the same text? And so on. If the agreement text had addressed the issue of new parties joining then that could have been taken as disambiguation, but in this case there was no such text, raising questions including that addressed by CFJ 1796. -zefram
