On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judgement: TRUE > > Arguments: > > Event E1 = ehird creates a contract containing the claause "Anything may > act on behalf of ehird by announcement" > E2 = comex acted on ehird's behalf to cause em to deregister > E3 = ehird changes eir nickname to notehird > E4 = notehird changes eir nickname to ehird > E5 = ais523 claimed to act on ehird's behalf to cause em to > initiate this case > > These events occurred in this order. The contract was not terminated by > E2, nor was it terminated or amended between E3 and E4, thus it operated > normally at E5. > >
Side note, I changed ehird's name on behalf of em, otherwise the logic is sound.
