ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:36 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 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).
> Interesting point; I don't think act-on-behalf via non-contract consent
> has ever been established by a CFJ, and had assumed it didn't exist. As
> act-on-behalf is based on game custom anyway, this could make for a very
> interesting CFJ.
>
> I initiate an inquiry CFJ with II 2 into the statement {{If a player
> gives consent for other players to act on eir behalf without creating or
> modifying a contract for the purpose, such consent actually does allow
> those players to act on eir behalf.}}
>
> Arguments:
> I don't think there's any precedent or rules basis for this, but I might
> be wrong.
CFJ 1719.
