On 5/23/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's something: comex posted a nice history of when the Rules were > officially treated as a binding agreement, and registering was actually > considered to be akin to agreeing to a binding agreement: > > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-May/015165.html > In spite of that clause being taken out, that agreement-that-is-the-Rules > wasn't actually terminated for persons who were members at the time, > so comex is still bound to treat the Rules as a binding agreement.
Counter-arguments: Against I'm-still-bound-by-old-contract: R1503 only said that the Rules are to be adjudicated as if they were a contract, not that they actually are one. It was made clear that it's just a legal fiction-- there is no contract whose text is the text of the ruels that might have survived the repealing of that rule. Against duck-typing: In CFJ 1772, Zefram set the precedent that the Rules cannot be a binding agreement, because otherwise R101 rights would apply and cause effects that contradict custom. For example-- let's just say that my scam worked-- I would have made everyone bound by an amendment to the Rules that nobody had an opportunity to review. If the Rules are a binding agreement, then R101 (v) would prevent that-- yet nobody argued that case.
