On 2/16/2019 12:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Unless the rules explicitly say “the contract > can’t punish someone for X”, he meaning of a statement on the part of the > rules that a person can’t be considered bound to a contract is that the > rules won’t consider them bound. If Telnaior's proposal passes, the explicit rules text will be "Offices can only exist as long as they are defined by a rule." (if an explicit prohibition like this isn't in the rules, then I agree with you).
Consider this: > contract can always say “Person X is not a part to this contract, but
all> further provisions of this contract shall operate as if e were”. I agree that the limitations are trivial to get around, but if we're simulating contract law and contract loopholes, technicalities such as including this kind of language may be necessary, to make it clear what everyone's agreeing to.
Allow contracts to do that without explicitly writing it out doesn’t make them any more powerful, it just provides shorthand.
Unless, in agreeing that the contract is bound by the rules, I'm agreeing to the fact that such shorthand is overruled by the rules (unless excepted within the contract by that "as if e were" language).
