============================== CFJ 2667 ============================== I have at least 1 zm ======================================================================== Caller: scshunt Judge: BobTHJ Judgement: TRUE ======================================================================== History: Called by scshunt: 21 Aug 2009 19:08:55 GMT Assigned to BobTHJ: 27 Aug 2009 14:55:26 GMT Judged TRUE by BobTHJ: 31 Aug 2009 17:56:51 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: I purportedly "deposited" a WRV. Deposit is a term defined by two separate contracts - the IBA and the PBA. At the time, I was party to both. I believed I was only party to the IBA and intended for the deposit to go to the IBA. The PBA is effectively inactive and has no good records. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: Roger Hicks wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:56, comex wrote: >> The IBA is now a player, so parties can deposit cards. >> >> =========================================================================== ==== >> >> Industrial Bank & Agora Report >> Date of this report: 11 August 2009 >> >> President of the IBA: comex >> >> =========================================================================== ==== >> >> Current Holdings: >> >> Nickname zm >> --------------------------------- >> *BobTHJ 135 >> *comex 320 >> *coppro 0 >> *Pavitra 623 >> *Tiger 130 >> *woggle 91 > > Based on my denial of the AAA CoE, I CoE the above: I have 5zm, coppro > has 130zm. > > BobTHJ ======================================================================== Judge BobTHJ's Arguments: I judge TRUE. The action at the time was reasonably unambiguous enough to trigger the deposit action defined in the IBA contract. The important matter in this case is the definition of actions which effect the holdings of assets defined elsewhere. It seems in the best interest of Agora for the recordkeepor of those assets (when possible) to make the determination if an action is successful, not the contract which defines the action. This judgment attempts to rule in line with the above assumption. ========================================================================