On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > I interpreted this as relatively clear consent to allow me to act on > Murphy's behalf support such an intent, although not as being a > contract. Note that my intent to protectorise Einos came after Murphy's > comment quoted above, although before the CFJ was called.
But it was in fact an agreement between you that imposes obligations on Murphy. Murphy is legally bound to accept your act-on-behalf-of as binding to eir action) and CFJ 1921 made it pretty clear that a public binding statement that a reasonable person would accept as binding should be construed as a contract. -Goethe
