On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:30, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if > > the Nethack sense of "ascend" was understood to be the relevant term > > in the spirit of the contract and the eyes of the parties. -Goethe > > On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine how the plaintiff was > harmed with respect to equity by the respondent's failure to abide by > eir pledge. I think it would be reasonable to assign the null judgment unless the plantiff explains this. I'm also not sure if we should even let the equity court handle > disputes over private pledges that have absolutely nothing to do with > Agora just because they claim to be intended to be bound by the rules > of Agora. A type of equity judgment similar to IRRELEVANT for > inquiries should be provided. In the spirit of internomic scamming^Wcooperation, I think we should avoid going too far in limiting the potential scope of private contracts/pledges. -woggle
