On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:21 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
Hrm, no. The legal basis for it has been discussed, and I don't recall anyone strongly objecting to it, but I'm not certain that it was ever formally tried. > 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. Yes, the equations are new contracts. That doesn't mean they can't be contracts to amend. And R101 has nothing to do with the "usual processes" of "modification or termination". I think you may be right that R101 does interfere with R1742's claim that contracts include the intention that they be governed by the rules. This leads to two interesting conclusions: 1) R101(iv) should be a privilege, not a right (i.e., you should be able to sign it away under certain circumstances). 2) It may not currently be possible to create an R1742 contract. If a contract must include the intention that the rules will govern it, and the rules *can't* govern it, then how can this requirement be fulfilled? >> 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. You've just been arguing that they don't have that that authority because of R101. Which is it? >> 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. R2198 does not require announcement, only agreement between all parties. As for the rest, go back and read Zefram's judgement in CFJ 1770 again. "It seems reasonable that such agreement could be manifested by a contract between all the parties...." It may be that since the AFO is a public contract, R2178 would prevent the change from happening immediately, but then it would only require that somebody publish it. -root
