Ian Kelly wrote: >Have you considered the possibility that the contract, as a means of >creating obligations but not otherwise changing game state, merely >required comex to authorize the AFO to act on eir behalf, and that >comex's redaction of that authorization was effective but in violation >of the contract?
Not explicitly, but it's in a class of situations that I considered and dismissed. We have judicial precedent that a state of agreement can be manifested by contract even if the parties claim to disagree (CFJ 1770), and the state of authorisation doesn't seem qualitatively different for these purposes. Authorisation can be reformulated as agreement that the agent is permitted to act on the principal's behalf. We also have the precedent that the authorisation from a partnership for partners to act on eir behalf is only ever manifested by the governing contract, though this case might be distinguished because (a) partnerships have no other way to grant authorisation, and (b) the contract text is analogous to the partnership's mind. -zefram
