On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> ais523 can act on my behalf to cause me to support eir own intent to
> make Einos (http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/) a protectorate.
I CFJ on the statement: { ais523 can act on Murphy's behalf to cause
me to support eir own intent to make Einos
(http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/) a protectorate. }
Arguments:
This is not a contract. No rule says that act-on-behalf can only be
granted by contracts; CFJ 1719, for example, dealt with a web form.
But contracts have been the only mechanism by which we have thus far
allowed act-on-behalf where it is clearly and immediately obvious who
is acting on behalf of whom, as opposed to the webform, in which case
it would not be in the best interests of the game to have anything
depend on who submitted it. In other precedents (the non-binding
contract), act-on-behalf has been considered a type of obligation,
which would suggest FALSE, but does that really make sense?
