Also, just as a practical matter, the fact that contracts can be private
is a big issue for 1-person contracts - with 2-person contracts there's
at least an evidence trail that can be provided (emails), but one-person
contracts don't have that. Some modification to require one-person
contracts to be public would be needed.
Finally, not even sure it works - just on textual definitions saying
"one person may make an agreement with emself" is problematic especially
if they're private contracts. That's kind of nonsense. If taken
literally, it's worth pointing out that we adjudicate contract-forming
broadly. In that if two parties make a deal (without using the word
contract), it's an enforceable contract under many situations. With those
precedents, one could argue that, one generally always agrees with emself -
so every action a person takes is a contract with oneself.
So - conceptually I might be convinced to take this route again, but
practically, just substituting "one" for "two" is not the way to go
about it - needs more thought.
-G.
On 7/19/2019 6:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The latter - a one-person contract is basically (in past) a huge ticket
to all kinds of nonsense (including, yes, a scam that would be possible
now), requiring a second person really tends to damp that sort of thing out.
-G.
On 7/18/2019 6:48 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Forgive me, but how much can you actually do if you are the only person
party to a contract, unless there's a pre-existing rules bug? Or is the
issue just that it would make such a bug exploitable with one person
instead of two?
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts
AGAINST. Makes some scams too easy.
