On Saturday 02 February 2008 22:27:05 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a contract. > > Proto-judgement: FALSE. a "non-binding contract" is a contradiction > in legal terms, and a meaningless semantic construct. R1742, and R2169, > both explicitly and explicitly link the concept of "contract" with the > concept of it being binding in law. Further, the primary definition of > "Contract" (M-W online) is: "a binding agreement between two or more > persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable". > > By both common definition and Agoran Law, a contract is a contract > only as long as it is binding, and when it ceases to be binding (or if > it never binding), it ceases to be legally enforceable, or have a legal > impact on the Rules (for example, it ceases to govern delegations, > powers of Attorney, devolution of obligations, transfer of rights > and/or duties). > > -Goethe
I don't think relying on an ordinary-language definition of contract is warranted because R1742 seems to define it. I think you should also examine the possiblity that the X agreement is a contract but is binding (in spite of its text). -woggle
