Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and as far as I > > could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but what the parties > > wanted. > > If all of the parties agree to a resolution, the equity court isn't > needed. I don't think this interpretation is a good one, but if it is, > the obvious fix to this bug in the rules is to just get rid of equity > cases altogether, as they'd have no purpose. All they're allowed to > do is create contracts that the parties could create themselves, and > if the only appropriate contracts for them to create are those the > parties *want* to create themselves they should just do it. As far as I can tell, the equity courts are there to settle disagreements between the parties; the best way to do this is to foster communication between the parties and hopefully come up with a resolution they all agree on, which can be used as the judgement.
However, this approach turned out to be quite spectacularly scammable if combined with an equity-courts-can-create-contests loophole (which probably doesn't exist, but is still being disputed in the courts.) -- ais523
<<winmail.dat>>
