On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2026a > > ============================ Appeal 2026a ============================ > > Panelist: BobTHJ > Decision: > > Panelist: woggle > Decision: > > Panelist: ais523 > Decision: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Appeal initiated: 23 Jun 2008 00:39:02 GMT > Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to woggle (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to ais523 (panelist): (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Appellant Murphy's Arguments: > > I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement. Clause 0 of the > Left Hand agreement (and its Right Hand counterpart) could be removed > without changing anything else about either contract. Furthermore, by > H. Judge Wooble's logic, an equation arguably becomes part of the > original contract (if it still exists). > > ======================================================================== > > Appellant comex's Arguments: > > I support Murphy's attempt to appeal this. Although I agree with the > judge's arguments with respect to contracts which attempt to bind > would-be parties to other contracts, it does not seem to me like the > Left Hand is trying to bind anyone who agrees to it to the Right Hand. > Instead, the clause: > >> 0. Each party to this agreement is also a party to the Right Hand >> agreement, and vice versa. > > seems to me just a statement of fact. It happens that this fact would > become false if anyone "guesses the nature of the Right Hand's > restrictions..." and becomes a party to the Left Hand while not being > a party to the Right Hand, not unlike the "The contestmaster shall be > root.". > > ========================================================================
Thanks for including my gratuitous arguments... -root
