============================ Appeal 2026a ============================
Appeal initiated: 23 Jun 2008 00:39:02 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): 23 Jun 2008 00:44:08 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist): 23 Jun 2008 00:44:08 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist): 23 Jun 2008 00:44:08 GMT
woggle moves to REMAND: 24 Jun 2008 02:38:31 GMT
BobTHJ moves to REMAND: 24 Jun 2008 14:46:44 GMT
ais523 moves to REMAND: 24 Jun 2008 17:10:50 GMT
Final decision (REMAND): 24 Jun 2008 23:45:25 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by root:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement. Clause 0 of the
>> Left Hand agreement (and its Right Hand counterpart) could be removed
>> without changing anything else about either contract.
> It would then be possible to be party to one without being party to
> the other, so the restrictions of the Right Hand would not be
> necessarily included among the restrictions of the Left Hand.
>> Furthermore, by
>> H. Judge Wooble's logic, an equation arguably becomes part of the
>> original contract (if it still exists).
> No, because new parties to the original contract are not automatically
> subject to the equation.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 1:00 PM, comex wrote:
>> I support Murphy's attempt to appeal this. Although I agree with the
>> judge's arguments with respect to contracts which attempt to bind
>> would-be parties to other contracts, it does not seem to me like the
>> Left Hand is trying to bind anyone who agrees to it to the Right Hand.
>> Instead, the clause:
>>> 0. Each party to this agreement is also a party to the Right Hand
>>> agreement, and vice versa.
>> seems to me just a statement of fact. It happens that this fact would
>> become false if anyone "guesses the nature of the Right Hand's
>> restrictions..." and becomes a party to the Left Hand while not being
>> a party to the Right Hand, not unlike the "The contestmaster shall be
> If you agree to the Left Hand, then you agree to that clause. If you
> agree to that clause, then you agree that you are a party to /
> agreeing to be bound by the Right Hand.
> I also don't believe that your interpretation fits what Murphy and
> pikhq intended.
Panelist woggle's Arguments:
This panel judges REMAND.
H. Murphy's argument that clause 0 could be removed without changing anything
else is irrelevant. It is there, and if it is possible for contracts to bind
people to other documents by the act of agreeing to them, it does. H. Prior
Judge Wooble made the reasonable conclusion that it does here.
H. comex's argument that clause 0 is merely a statement of fact also does not
cast sufficient doubt on the H. Prior Judge's conclusion. It is not
conventional to render entire clauses of contracts and rules without effect
without a good reason. Indeed, as comex's argument points out, it would render
the statement of fact false had it no effect, even though it seems entirely
within the power of the contract to render it true. This is materially
different from the case of 'the contestmaster shall be root' where the rules
entirely take precedence over the contract's ability to render that "fact"
Now, there is a troubling issue here which has not been examined. As the exact
text of The Right Hand is not available, a party to the left hand joining as
permitted in clause 7 may not be able to be automatically bound by The Right
Hand under R101(v). This makes it less clear whether The Right Hand is
functionally part of The Left Hand.
The panel requests that H. Prior Judge Wooble examine this issue and revise
eir judgement accordingly.