On Monday 28 July 2008 03:14:11 pm I wrote:
> Resolving this probably will require a close reading of rule 2178.
> There would superficially appear to be a conflict in this case
> between its second-to-last and last paragraphs.
>
> For reference:
>
If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear
indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then
it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a
contract.
Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not
become effective until they are published.
It seems to me that the last paragraph has no effect unless the text in
question is a public contract, which cannot be the case unless it is a
contract, which cannot be true unless it has two parties, which in
this case requires that ihope successfully became a party to it.
Thus, I see two possible interpretations of the situation:
(1) the membership of the contract did not "change"; the contract
came into being as a contract with the set of parties {Sgeo, ihope}.
(2) paradox: public contract -> no unpublished changes -> ihope not
party -> not contract -> not public contract -> last paragraph of 2178
does not apply -> ihope's agreement to contract was effective -> two
parties -> contract -> public contract.
At first, I suspected that there might be two copies of the contract,
one public with only Sgeo as a party and one private with both Sgeo
and ihope, but upon closer examination I believe that the rule does
not support this. (In particular, the contract did not allow for
itself to be a pledge, so with only Sgeo as party it could not be a
contract and hence not a public contract.)
Pavitra
