ais523 wrote: > Gratuitous arguments: There blatantly isn't an act-on-behalf here, > because there's no way a contract with ehird as its only party can allow > em to act on behalf of Wooble. However, the judge should probably look > at if Wooble's request to ehird was R2164/3 para 2 consent to allow > ehird to transfer the case to emself and judge it, and whether ehird did > indeed invoke that paragraph. (By the way, did anyone else here remember > that that paragraph existed?)
Counterargument: act-on-behalf doesn't require a contract, it only requires consent. The intent behind this case was to determine whether Wooble's request constituted implicit consent (I expect not, but this will set some interesting precedent either way).
