On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:19 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5. As in 4, but in discussion forum.
> > 6. As in 4, but in private emails.
> > 7. As in 4, but on phone/chat/ephemeral medium.
> > Rule 2149/8 doesn't apply to any of these three, so none of these are
> > a contract.
>
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. The de facto
> precedent is that privately formed contracts are allowed; for example,
> IIRC, I never explicitly consented to the public forum to join the
> AFO, but rather by email to its other members.
>
Keep in mind the "As in 4" part of the CFJ, which was "if the phrasing
is informal..."
Consider the difference between two private communications between
Alice and Bob:
{{From Bob: I agree to the following private contract governed by the
Rules of Agora Nomic:
{ 1. This is a private contract between Bob and Alice. When both
Alice and Bob agree.to it, it shall bind them both. Until then, it
binds neither of them.
2. Alice shall send a private communication to Bob of her hand in
Agoran Poker.
3. Upon receipt of Alice's communication, Bob shall send a private
communication to Alice of his hand in Agoran Poker.
4. This contract shall dissolve immediately upon completion of the
obligations in 2 and 3.
}}
{From Alice: [contract from Bob quoted] I agree to the above
contract. My hand is 10S JS QS KS 2C.}}
Is Bob bound to send his hand in return? The de facto precedent you
"cite" would suggest that yes, Bob is so bound, and could be so
ordered in an equity case to enforce the contract.
This CFJ, on the other hand, concerns private communications along the lines of:
{{From Bob: Hey Alice, I'll show you mine if you show me yours --
Agoran Poker hands, that is.}
{From Alice: OK. Mine is 10S JS QS KS 2C, what's yours?}}
This judgment says that this communication isn't sufficient evidence
of an agreement with the intent by both Bob and Alice to be bound by
it. That isn't to say that the first, more formal, communication
wouldn't be sufficient evidence.
