On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement, disqualifying >> Wooble: >> >> In the message quoted in caller's evidence, ehird acted on behalf >> of Wooble to judge CFJ 2321. > > > Gratuitous argument: if a contract I'm not a party to can cause me to > grant power of attorney to ehird, Agora's more broken than B.
If the contract directly and clearly said "anyone who formally requests the servant to do X grants the servant the right to act on eir behalf" would probably work, *if* it could be shown that anyone who knew about the servant at all would need to have read the contract and should know about the clause, *and* there was no other meaningful game action that such a request could imply. The fact that such a clear clause isn't there means I don't think it works, or was in particular intended to work---I assumed it was just giving you a judgement you could use if you wanted---I suspect a court would agree. In fact I'm surprised Murphy thought there was any ambiguity here. -Goethe
