On 23:10 Sat 02 Feb , Charles Reiss wrote: > 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).
I dunno; maybe in this case, the ordinary-language definition supplements the rule's definition, since the rule's definition *does* seem to be merely attempting to formalise the ordinary-language definition. . .
