Clerk's Note: One last apology to Kolja for putting the wrong name in the
subject line when we first published this CFJ. We're glad it was spotted
by em and Judged appropriately. ;-)
If entity X submits a Transfer Order satisfying a Payment Order
naming another entity Y as payor, entity Y will commit the Crime
of Contempt by Inaction if entity Y does not submit the Transfer
Order specifically required by the Payment Order.
Called by: Elysion
Eligible: Annabel, Kolja, Michael, Murphy, Palnatoke,
Peekee, Vlad, Wes
Had their turn: Beefurabi, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe,
Already served: -
By request: -
On Hold: Lee, Oerjan, Steve
Called by Elysion: 31 Jul 1999 21:48:16 -0400
Assigned to Kolja: 03 Aug 1999 16:48:48 GMT
Judged TRUE by Kolja: 08 Aug 1999 13:14:15 +0200
Judgement published: As of this message
By rule 1569/3, the Payment Order requires entity Y to submit a
specific Transfer Order.
Rule 1793/0 states:
An Order is a command, executed by a Player and directed to some
entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or
to refrain from performing one or more actions.
CFJ #1142 established that a Payment Order can be satisfied by
entity X. However, entity Y has not obeyed the order, so will be
guilty of Contempt by Inaction if e does not perform the required
action (by rule 1810/0).
Evidence attached by the Caller:
CFJ1142 established that PO can be satisfied by a player who is not
the payor named in the PO, i.e. it doesn't matter who satisfies the
PO (because the lower numbered 1732 takes precedence over 1810).
However, the 'Crime of Contempt by Inaction' is defined in R1810 as
failure 'to perform the required action' in time by the 'entity who
is required by an Order to perform an act'. This definition is not
altered by contradicting regulation in 1732 and remains valid,
implying that the statement is true.