On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 13:40, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I withdraw the previous version of this proposal titled "Fix asset > redefinition", and submit the following revised version. > > Proposal: Contract precedence > (AI = 2, please) > > woggle is a co-author of this proposal. > > Create a new rule titled "Precedence of Contracts" with > Power 2 and this text: > > In a conflict between a rule and a contract, or between two > contracts: > > a) If the conflict pertains to obligation or prohibition, then > neither entity takes precedence; it is up to the party to > avoid such conflicts. If the conflict pertains to existence > or possibility, then the following clauses apply. > > b) In a conflict between a rule and a contract, the rule takes > precedence. > > c) In a conflict between a public contract and a private > contract, the public contract takes precedence. > > d) In a conflict between two public contracts, or between two > private contracts, the older contract takes precedence.
You want to tie break public contracts on how long they have been public, probably (otherwise you can surprise people who've proto'd their public contract with an appropriate private one). There's also the slight issue of people who control old public contracts amending their contracts to define things they didn't before. (Probably really need to tiebreak on how long (while public) it defined that thing or whatever.) -woggle
