Proto-Judgement of CFJs 2091-92:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are linked assignments.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2091
>
> ========================= Criminal Case 2091 =========================
>
> Quazie violated rule 101 by abridging, reducing, limiting, or
> removing Blind, Deaf and Mute's rights.
>
> ========================================================================
>> {
>> 1. The following is a public contract, known as Blind, Deaf, and Mute.
>>
>> 2. Members of this contract are known as partners.
>>
>> 3. This contract devolves all obligations onto its members.
>>
>> 4. No partner may act on this partnerships behalf.
>>
>> 5. If ever "Blind, Deaf, and Mute" incurrs an obligation, any player
>> may act emself to fulfil this obligation, noting that they are doing
>> so instead of "Blind, Deaf, and Mute"
This is a spectacularly poor mechanism for devolving "Blind, Deaf, and
Mute" (BDM)'s obligations, because most of the obligations that might
be put on someone (such as a partnership) cannot be satisfied by
another player acting emself to fufil them. Perhaps, if the BDM is
required to send some chits to a player, that player might agree to
accept chits from the BDM's parties instead, but e is under no
obligation to do so, and Rule-defined obligations can never be
substituted this way. Also, if neither Quazie nor tusho was a player,
the persons required to fufil BDM's obligations would not even be
allowed to make a token attempt to do so.
However, whether or not a partnership's members CAN fufil its
obligations is not relevant to whether or not those obligations
devolve onto them. Instead, this is determined by whether the members
SHALL fufil them. The obligations of BDM become obligations of its
members, by clause 3, and that's enough to serve both the letter and
spirit of Rule 2145: if BDM ever incurs any obligations whatsoever,
its members can be punished for not fufiling them. BDM is, therefore,
a partnership and a person.
>> 8. When both Quazie and tusho join this partnership, it registers as
>> "Blind, Deaf, and Mute"
However, BDM is not a player. It is customary not to allow contracts
to take actions automatically.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, Quazie and tusho allegedly violated this
clause of R101:
Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement
or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or
remove a person's defined rights.
Although the rule says "may", in context it clearly means CAN. An
attempt to abridge, reduce, limit, or remove the rights of BDM would
be ineffective, not a Rules violation.
Anyway, BDM is not a player, so it has no Rule 101 (vi.) rights; I
think that Rule 101 (vi.) would prevent it from becoming a player.
So I proto-judge INNOCENT in CFJs 2091-92.
