On Tuesday 15 April 2008 12:57:36 Ian Kelly wrote: > It seems to me that the reference to "minimum number of parties" is > The key difference between a pledge and > another contract is not the minimum number of parties, but the fact > that a regular contract constitutes an agreement between its members > only, whereas a pledge constitutes, in a sense, an agreement between > parties and non-parties.
This is a good point, and suggests a perhaps better implementation for the concept of pledges. Contracts could have sort of half-parties, who are in no way bound by the terms of the contract, but who can vote and veto on contract changes as if they were parties. Then the pledge form would look something like the following rather unimaginative examples: A: I pledge to B that I will X. B: (reply) I accept A's pledge. A: I pledge to the players that I will X. B: I accept. C: (no reply) In this case, the pledge is valid, but C is not a semiparty to it. A: I pledge that I will X. (no one cares) ["Pledge" with no object is implicitly to the players.] In this case, the pledge is still valid, but probably has no teeth, as A can amend it at will. Still, if A fails to X without first dissolving eir pledge, e is culpable for breach of contract law. The rule would have to be carefully worded to avoid allowing the terms of the pledge to affect its semiparties in any way.
