On Saturday 02 February 2008 21:24:37 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Feb 2, 2008 9:58 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I CFJ on the following: comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a > > contract. > > This may not be sufficient; there are other reasons that the scam may > have failed. > > I CFJ on the following: comex successfully caused at least one player > other than emself to cast a vote on Proposal 5419. > > I disqualify comex from judging this case. > > In addition to the issue of contracthood in the case initiated by > pikhq, I request that the judge consider: > > 1) whether "agreement between all parties" to change the membership of > a "non-binding contract" must include the agreement of the prospective > parties in addition to the agreement of the prior parties; > > and > > 2) whether delegation of powers can be effected by a "contract" that > is not binding. I suggest that CFJs 1833-1835 may be useful > precedents here.
I would also suggest that the contract may be binding dispite its explicit statement to the contrary due to R1742's requirement to abide by it. It would be good to know what exactly makes an agreement binding, anyways... Since the contract in question didn't seem to ever impose any obligations on comex, if imposing obligations is necessary for a contract to be binding on someone, then the contract in question may have not been made "intention that it be binding upon" both the AFO and comex. -woggle
