On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > 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).
counter-counter: consenting to act-on-behalf-of amounts to a secondary contract, so it must be explicit not implicit [see CFJ 1921, assuming 'consent' and 'agree' are reasonable synonyms in this context]. -G.
