Pavitra wrote:
> 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.
There may still be some gray area, but this recent sequence of events is
not it. In particular, in the following hypothetical cases, I think
EXCUSED would be appropriate:
1) I join Contracts X and Y, which initially do not conflict.
2) Y is amended with majority support so that it comes into conflict
with X.
a) The amendment occurs so quickly that I don't have a reasonable
opportunity to leave. Generally, 7 days (ASAP) or even 4 days
(objection) are reasonable, but 1 hour is not (CFJs 1792-93).
b) Before the amendment takes effect, I claim to leave; after it
takes effect, the clause intended to allow it is discovered to
have been broken.
