On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:40 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Thus, we reach that third interpretation: we are consenting to that rice > plan obtaining or not obtaining your signature. You consent to the change, > the action that occurs, or you reaffirm consent that inaction is > acceptable: that no change is acceptable.
Ok, the more I read this, honestly, the worse it gets. It implies that continual silence equals consent (in direct contradiction with CFJ 4013) and moreover, completely contradicts what "consent" means for contracts (with respect to withdrawal) with no suggestion that such a difference is textual in the Rice rule. If consent is taking to be continuously evaluated like this as some kind of "standing action", what exactly prevents people from withdrawing from "binding" contracts at any time? -G.
