On 5/27/23 14:39, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > 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.
See also CFJ 3583 (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3583), in which Judge [nix] found that consent cannot be inferred from silence, and one must be able to point to a specific instant of consent. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
