On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > The Estate Auction wording is: "The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer > the auctioned Estate to emself by announcement, IF E PAYS Agora the > amount of the bid". That's readable and should be read as > non-simultaneous: that is, the winner can get the estate if e has paid > Agora the amount of the winning bid in shinies for the single and sole > purpose of winning the Estate.
The way we've interpreted "E can X by announcement if e Y's" when Y is a present-tense verb is that those *generally* need to be a single transaction, as opposed to meaning "e can X if e has previously done [past tense] Y". As I said, your reading is quite plausible by common language so at this point I'm looking for that precedent... It *is* a neat loophole if it works though, let me be clear on that.
