Bugger, got my time zones mixed up. This was, of course, judged at 10:24, not 11:24.
This is my first ever CFJ judgement - please do not hesitate to say if I got something wrong. -twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:24 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > ============================== CFJ 3644 ============================== > > Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours. > > ======================================================================================================================================== > > Caller: G. > Barred: D. Margaux > > Judge: twg > Judgement: TRUE > > ============================================================ > > History: > > Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19 UTC > Assigned to twg: 01 Oct 2018 03:01 UTC > Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24 UTC > > ================================================================================================================================= > > Caller's Arguments: > > 1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts? > It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake > deals" be backed up by Agoran courts. > > 2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works - > by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and > is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows > it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked. > > ======================================================================== > > Judge twg's Arguments: > > The caller refers to the following thread of messages: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my > > > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other > > > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to > > > transfer > > > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September. > > > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings wouldn't > > > survive and that would be a shame. > > > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the > > > economy > > > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who claimed > > > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them back > > > so I don't have to start from scratch. > > > ~Corona > > > > -- > > D. Margaux > > This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's > messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts", > for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the > caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been > INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on > behalf are contracts and zombiehood. > > Rule 1742/19 states, in part: > > Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may > make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be > binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement > is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including > by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing > parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all > parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of > parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule, > agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by > contract. > > We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of > requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a > contract: > > 1. Is it an "agreement"? > 2. Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it? > 3. Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be > binding upon them and governed by the rules? > > I will investigate each of these requirements in turn. > > First, do these message constitute an "agreement" between Corona and > D. Margaux? Rule 1742 says that "agreement includes both consent and > agreement specified by contract". However, to apply this as a definition > of a countable noun would suggest that "an agreement" can mean either > "a consent" or "an agreement specified by contract" - the first being > nonsensical and the second a circular definition. This court therefore > believes that the intent of this sentence is to define the action of > agreement, viz. the method by which a contract may be modified or > terminated, and recommends that Rule 1742 be amended to reduce the > confusion caused by this terminology. > > Lacking a rule-bast definition for an "agreement", we thus turn to past > judicial precedent. In CFJ 3315, faced also with the problem of the lack > of definition for this word, the Honourable Judge scshunt noted that the > rules clearly assumed the existence of the external concept of an > "agreement", and held that: > > ...given the lack of reference to agreements within the rules, it > appears to be that the interpretation of "agreement" in this CFJ > and in the rules should be given maximum latitude, so djanatyn's > statement can be interpreted as an agreement (such an > interpretation being of questionable value for any purpose other > than the analysis of this inquiry, however). > > This court sees no reason to overturn the precedent set in CFJ 3315, > and therefore confirms the Honourable Judge scshunt's ruling. It is > clear that both Corona and D. Margaux believed this exchange of messages > to constitute a contract, as both took actions on the assumption that > D. Margaux's action to transfer Corona's liquid assets to emself was > EFFECTIVE; and therefore this exchange matched their understandings > of the concept of an "agreement". The first requirement for the > exchange to be considered a contract is therefore met. > > Secondly, did both Corona and D. Margaux consent to the agreement? > "Consent" is explicitly defined by Rule 2519/0, "Consent": > > A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting > as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This > agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from > context that the person wanted the agreement to take place. > > Corona stated that e "g[a]ve permission" to any player to fulfill the > other half of the agreement. This is an unambiguous statement of > consent. D. Margaux, meanwhile, attempted to perform an action that > would be POSSIBLE only if e did, in fact, consent to the agreement; > game custom is that this constitutes valid implied consent. Both Corona > and D. Margaux were thus consenting parties to the agreement. > > Finally, did both Corona and D. Margaux intend for the agreement to be > binding upon them and governed by the rules? Again, their later actions > confirm that they believed (and hence intended for) their agreement to > have been a contract, which by definition would have been binding upon > them and governed by the rules. > > The above requirements all having been met, I judge CFJ 3644 TRUE. > > ======================================================================== >
