On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 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.That doesn't address whether Peekee's granting of those abilities amounted to a de-facto contract. For example, it might be IMPOSSIBLE to make such an agreement without it being considered a contract of some kind (thus the CFJ statement is UNDETERMINED). -Goethe
