On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>> The contest egregiously attempts to bribe its parties to not
>> participate in the fora, by awarding points only if they don't.
>> However, it's just a bribe. The contest is not actually prohibiting
>> participation, i.e. you could not initiate an equity or criminal case
>> against a party who initiated CFJs.
>
> I think it's probably perfectly fine unless the barrier is so high
> that it effectively prevents CFJs from being called. Here's a very
> strong argument (I think!) that it's ok: Another Right allows you to
> refuse to be a member of a contract, but contracts, by their very nature,
> offer various benefits (e.g. "bribes") to become a member. So you can
> be compensated for not doing something that it's otherwise your right
> to do.
>
Hypothetical contract:
{
This is a pledge. Parties to this pledge can't iniatiate CFJs
}
If a party to the above contract initiatied a CFJ their R101 right
would permit them to do so. However, this wouldn't free them from the
punitive damages from the judgment of an equity case, would it? The
contract is still valid even if its provision can't be enforced
equitably.
BobTHJ
