On Friday 9 May 2008 10:18:15 Elliott Hird wrote: > The Argument: > > I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated > its parties to not be party to it, and therefore the contract > obligated its parties to break the rules. Therefore, since I > could not have done anything else, I plead EXCUSED. <snip> > The Rebuttal of the Rebuttal: > > I should not be found GUILTY because my religion - > Agoracontractian - requires me to make that contract, and > it is unreasonable to say that I could drop my religion to > avoid breaking the rules. Therefore, I plead EXCUSED.
From 1742: Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or between the contract and the rules. It seems to me that this is precisely the sort of situation envisioned by the "not impaired by contradiction" clause. Either (1) the clause is wholly ineffective for some reason, or (2) this is a special case somehow with regards to the clause (and I have not seen any arguments to that effect thus far), or (3) EXCUSED is an inappropriate judgment. All this foolery with contractual religion and metareligion and whatnot is, as far as I can tell, swept neatly away by this argument. You must obey contracts, no matter what. Pavitra
