Index ← 1956 CFJ 1957 1958 → text
==============================  CFJ 1957  ==============================

    There is a pen that owns at least 1 crumpet.


Caller:                                 Machiavelli

Judge:                                  pikhq

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Machiavelli:                  19 May 2008 20:37:35 GMT
Assigned to pikhq:                      22 May 2008 03:33:35 GMT
pikhq recused:                          07 Jun 2008 07:13:25 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     07 Jun 2008 07:15:07 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wooble:                 09 Jun 2008 13:13:21 GMT


Judge Wooble's Arguments:

Rule 2166 says that the owner of an asset generally CAN transfer it to
another entity, so ehird CAN transfer a crumpet in eir possession to a
pen.  The court rejects H. Ivan Hope CXXVII's assertion that a pen,
being a fungible entity, cannot own different assets than another pen
with the same owner; ownership in this case is a property of the
crumpet, not of the pen, so the fungibility of any given entity's pens
is immaterial.  There's no general right to cause an asset in one's
possession to transfer assets it owns to oneself, and thus 2 pens are
of equal value regardless of whether one of them happens to own
crumpets as well.  (It is, of course, impossible for the recordkeepor
of crumpets to say for sure which pen owns a particular crumpet, since
pens don't have individuality, but that's rather the recordkeepor's
problem, not the court's.)

However, I hold that the statement "I create a crumpet, eat it, and
transfer it to a pen, randomly
selected from all pens." is meaningless, since the original crumpet
ceases to exist upon being eaten, as it is replaced with 5 crumpets,
leaving the second "it" without a referent.  The attempted transfer
therefore failed, so at the time these CFJs were called, both were

(Were they to be called again now, after the clarified action of
attempting to transfer all of the crumpets created by the eating of 1,
I'd argue for a ruling of UNDETERMINED, since at least one pen has
been destroyed in the interim and the information about whether the
crumpets were owned by a destroyed pen is unavailable to the court,
and, for that matter, to the recordkeepor of crumpets.  Again, it's
the responsibility of the parties to the contract defining crumpets to
ensure that they can only be owned by entities that can be
distinguished; they cannot shift that responsibility to the courts.)