On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> Previous equity judgements were not so >> cleanly enumerated and yet all material considerations contained therein >> were part of the agreements. > > No, it was only paragraph 1) that created equity. Everything else > about the contract was gravy.
A confession! "Gravy" = "benefit in the other direction beyond equity" means the judgement is inequitable and inappropriate: judges take note. Still, gravy or equity, that's a side note. > It's a description of various attributes of the contract. You could > choose to view it as pragmatically part of the judgement or as simply > platonically describing the judgement, but the difference seems > largely semantic to me. The only relevant statement that the judge makes is the judgement. Nothing else can be construed to have legal effect. The judgement has no power to platonically describe itself. > Something can be part of the agreement without being part of the > *text* of the agreement. For "text" read "material aspects" or "content" that is legally relevant to interpreting the agreement. The point is, the material aspect of contest-hood is not for the contract cum judgement to grant or impose on itself (or if it does, it need not be recognized outside the parties). Contest-hood is Agora's to grant by the Rules of Agora. -Goethe
