On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Nonsense, a contract is not a zero-sum game, and an equitable
resolution to a breach can be beneficial to all parties. Paragraph 1
of the contract is the only one that involves equity in *any*
direction. The rest of the contract doesn't touch on the prior
inequity of the case at all and is entirely orthogonal to whether or
not equity is achieved.
> 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.
That's not what R2158 says:
When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid
judgement to it by announcement...
I see no restriction as to what means the judge is permitted to use in
referring to the judgement e is assigning.
> 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.
It's not a contest by virtue of granting contesthood to itself. It's
a contest by virtue of that being a property of the particular
contract selected by the judge. Contesthood is therefore granted by
R2169 which, last I checked, is one of the Rules of Agora.
-root
