> calculated. A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or both
> (but must be at least one of Legal or Equitable); other rules
A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or Dual.
> The only appropriate sentence in a question on sentencing with
> respect to a non-Legal contract is DISCHARGE. Equity cases can only
> be initiated with respect to Equitable contracts, or with respect
> to Hidden contracts; the only appropriate judgement for an Equity
> case with respect to a non-Equitable Secret contract is the null
> judgement.
This logic should be elsewhere, like rules 2169 ("...in the operation
of a particular Equitable or Dual contract") and 1742 ("Parties to a
Legal or Dual contract SHALL act in accordance...").
Actually for the latter you probably have the right idea organizing it
by Enforceability, so something like "Parties to a Loose,
non-Equitable contract SHALL act as specified by that contract."
> Agreement (Power 2)
> {{{
> At any given time, for each document, each person is either not
> agreeing to that document (the default), privately agreeing to that
> document, or publically agreeing to that document; this is a
> persistent status that can change only as described by rules with
> power at least 1.5.
This should be a switch. "Agreement is a switch possessed by each
ordered pair of the form (person, document), with the possible values
Demurring (default), Conspiring, and Professing."
> * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the
> person was aware of or could easily have found out that an
> attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made,
> and could have ceased to agree to the document in question
> during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no
> effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other
> than the ceasing to agree itself.
This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership
is restricted to parties.
> Pledge is a possible value for Enforceability. A Pledge contract
> can also be known as merely a pledge, unless this is unclear from
> context.
I'm not sure this could be abused in the case of pledges, but in
general -- do these rules enable one person to unilaterally disband a
contract by agreeing to a document with identical text, but doing so
in a way that changes its Enforceability or Spirit? If not, can you
explain exactly how they don't?
> Entities can act on behalf of parties to a contract as
> specifically, clearly and unambiguously specified in a Public
> contract, pledge, or Loose contract whose text is publically
> available;
"Entities can act on behalf of parties to a Public, Pledge, or Loose
contract whose text is publically available as that contract clearly
and unambiguously specifies."
Pavitra, who totally wants coauthor credit on this
