Benjamin Caplan wrote: > This feels wrong somehow. The first two paragraphs appear to be arguing > for TRUE, but then the last one contradicts their conclusions without > refuting their arguments. > > In light of the reasoning presented in the second paragraph of this > judgement, how do you find inclarity as to whether immibis intended to > be bound?
I find it unambiguous that e intended to allow ais523 to use eir script to publish the contract, but there is no actual indication that e intended for a contract to be formed - rather, the intent was to see if the contract would be formed.
