On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:22 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it can be argued that, although it's certainly possible to make > a contract in a-d (I've made an Agoran contract over IRC before, for > instance), the context of that particular pledge seems to show that it > might not necessarily be true. When Sgeo said that e agreed, it seemed > likely that e was lying; there is no rule against lying in a-d, > therefore it does not seem to me necessarily true that e was making the > offer in the first place. (I would consider it to be a valid contract if > not for the context it was in.)
When you say that you agree to something in a public forum, it's not considered an agreement because lying in the public forum is illegal; it's considered an agreement because saying that you agree is how you create a binding agreement. Sgeo said he agreed; since this is how you create a binding agreement, it's now a binding agreement. On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:02 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I call an equity case. >> >> Pledge: the above. >> Parties: Sgeo and me. >> State of affairs: Sgeo could stash all the currency I didn't give him, >> then claim he only has to give back what he has after stashing. This >> is clearly a great injustice. > > Gratuitous argument: if that pledge is a contract, the state of > affairs in question is *exactly* what was envisioned by the contract > by all of its parties. The contract says "all of [Sgeo's] supply of that currency". This is circumvented if Sgeo artificially reduces his possessions without actually reducing what's available to him. Then again, the wording "all of my supply" does kind of imply that Sgeo must return not only all the VP in his possession but also all the VP he has easy access to. Though I guess that could still be circumvented by putting it in a partnership that wouldn't release it for two weeks or something. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
