Kerim Aydin wrote: >It's a different mechanism. But you still define contests to be a subclass of contracts. I don't think this will work.
>root proposed a rule that would fix that, No, root's proposal would define "basis" for first-class persons. It's currently defined only for partnerships. Neither version of the rule defines "basis" for non-partnership contracts. I think it would be problematic to apply the partnership definition to contracts in general too. If that's what you intend here, then I think you should say "the cardinality of the union of the bases of the contestants". > Having contests that accidentally >aren't contests but ARE contracts raises other questions (if a contestant >joins on the understanding that e is joining a contest, but it isn't a >contest, did e join under false pretenses so eir joining may be invalidated? >...messy). I don't see such a great problem here. The contract still operates some kind of competetive game, presumably, it just can't award Agoran points. I see no problem with a contract periodically gaining and losing contest status, as the conditions for contesthood change and the contract is modified to match the latest regulations. >Now that we have a body of contract law, I'm happy to depart explicitly from >"other law systems" in Agoran law... If you're going to do that then do it explicitly. Modify R1742's definition of "contract". -zefram
