A Payment Order may be satisfied by a Transfer Order issued by
an Entity other than the Payor named in the Payment Order.
Called by: Wes
Eligible: Beefurabi, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, Elysion,
harvel, Kolja, Lee, Morendil, Murphy, Peekee,
Had their turn: -
Already served: -
By request: -
On Hold: Michael, Oerjan
Called by Wes: 21 Jun 1999 14:29:17 -0700
Assigned to Blob: 21 Jun 1999 14:40:15 -0700
Judged TRUE by Blob: As of this message
Evidence attached by the Caller:
Making this judgement seems to require coming to terms with the apparent
separation in meaning between "satisfying an Order" and fulfilling its
Rule 1810 defines satisfaction of Orders, in general, as:
An Order is satisfied when the action which it requires to be
performed is performed by the entity it requires to perform it.
Since a Payment Order is defined in Rule 1596 as:
... an Order requiring an entity (the payor) to
submit a Transfer Order transferring units of a Currency from
itself to some other entity (the payee).
it would seem that this transfer (from the payor to the payee) is necessary
to satisfy a Payment Order.
But Rule 1732, which has precedence, offers an alternative means of
satisfaction in the particular case of Payment Orders:
A Payment Order is satisfied when a Transfer Order to the payee
of that Payment Order for the currency and amount named in that
Payment Order is successfully executed ...
Now this is only a new development. R1732 was originally phrased such
the Transfer Order had to come from the payor, but Proposal 3745
(authored by yours truly) removed that part of the condition (with
the deliberate intent to allow satisfaction by other players, insofar
as intent is relevant).
It is the opinion of this Judge, that this amendment altered the legal
definition of "satisfying an Order" from the commonsense "fulfilling
its requirements" to a special legal meaning, which includes, but is not
limited to "fulfilling its requirements". In particular, Payment Orders
can be "satisfied" by transfers from players other than the payor.
In addition to this argument, there stands a game custom of accepting
such transfers as satisfying Payment Orders. This Judge is aware of at
least one occasion when this has been done, although e cannot point to
The statement of this CFJ can be therefore be judged TRUE.
Some further discussion, slightly beyond the scope of this judgement,
seems warranted at this stage. It is noted that while a Payment Order
can be satisfied by a transfer from a player other than the Payor, it
still does not mean that the requirement of the Order is fulfilled.
This is an important distinction, because Rule 1801 states:
... Any entity who is required by an Order to perform
an act who fails to perform the required action prior to the
time specified in the Order commits the Crime of Contempt by
Inaction, a Class C Crime.
So even though the Payment Order is satified, the payor may still be
guilt of Contempt by Inaction. Rule 1795 specifies the timing requirements
for this Crime:
An Order which commands the performance of an action may specify
when that action is to be performed; if no specification is
given, ... then the Order shall be taken to require the
performance of the action as soon as possible after the Order