On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dubious. I believe we've previously established that agreeing to a
> contract is also agreement to abide by any equation that may arise
> from that contract --
Do you have a precedent for this? Proposal 5531 would have made the
Rules state that equations modify the original judgement, but it was
rejected. As is, Rule 2169 clearly states that equations are new
contracts between the parties. In fact, it even says that they are
"subject to modification or termination by the usual processes
governing binding agreements." Clearly Rule 101 applies here.
> that's what the whole "governed by the rules"
> bit in R1742 is about.
The Rules have the authority to modify my contracts, (possibly
limited?) and make equations modifications to their original
contracts, but currently they do not.
> It would appear to follow that:
> a) You agreed to be bound by the AFO and its mechanisms.
Yes.
> b) The AFO through its own mechanisms agreed to be bound by the Bank of Agora.
Yes.
> c) By a) and b), you agreed that the AFO would be bound by the Bank of
> Agora, i.e. that its responsibilities pertaining to the Bank of Agora
> would devolve upon you.
Yes. I am indirectly in violation of the clause of the Bank of Agora
regarding good faith actions.
> d) The AFO agreed to abide by any equation arising from the Bank of Agora.
No, it did not, although it is obligated to do so by the Rules.
> e) By c) and d), you agreed that the AFO's obligation to abide by the
> equation would devolve upon you.
No, see above.
> f) Therefore, you agreed to the responsibility to ensure that the AFO
> is amended as required by the equation.
No, see above.
> g) Since all parties of the AFO agreed to it, it happens.
No. I could make a contract with the parties of the AFO saying that
"the AFO contract is hereby amended such that etc." (which is not
effectively the case here, see above), and it would not happen. The
parties would either have to follow the usual mechanism of making
Contract Changes by announcement, or follow a mechanism described
explicitly by the text of the AFO. Both mechanisms clearly require
parties to explicitly agree to any proposed changes. There is no
mechanism by which changes can automatically happen.
Now, if all parties to the AFO were in fact parties to the Bank of
Agora, a judgement such as
{{
Goethe CAN act on behalf of comex, Murphy, etc. to terminate the AFO
}}
might work, but they are not. We may of course be obligated (through
the AFO) to create such a contract.
> If they're as limited as you claim, then they're very nearly useless.
> What's the point of establishing a SHALL in an equation where the
> original contract most likely already has one?
To facilitate the establishment of a replacement agreement that all
parties are satisfied with. If the parties cannot make such an
agreement, criminal cases are available to punish the guilty with more
"brute force".
Of course, this is only the current state of the Rules. They may
change, but I have never previously heard any arguments that equations
can overrule Rule 101.
