========================== Equity Case 2346 ==========================
ehird blatantly broke a SHALL requirement in the Scam Secrecy
Contract by revealing my mousetrap (or attempted mousetrap) to a
person who was not a member of that contract.
Called by ais523: 26 Dec 2008 19:27:14 GMT
Parties informed: 15 Jan 2009 08:13:44 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 23 Jan 2009 23:37:15 GMT
Judged by Wooble: 27 Jan 2009 12:17:08 GMT
Appealed by Pavitra: 28 Jan 2009 05:59:55 GMT
Appealed by woggle: 28 Jan 2009 06:09:03 GMT
Appealed by G.: 28 Jan 2009 07:15:08 GMT
Appeal 2346a: 28 Jan 2009 07:15:08 GMT
Appealed by ais523: 28 Jan 2009 10:37:12 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 06 Feb 2009 00:13:29 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 06 Feb 2009 00:13:29 GMT
Judged by Wooble: 06 Feb 2009 13:35:03 GMT
ehird: I'm not stupid enough to leave you (in particular) with a
dictatorship in B Nomic, you should have pretty much expected that
someone would repeal that. Besides, I don't think your original B scam
worked. And how petty to bring disuptes from one nomic into another...
I apologise to all Normishers concerned. Possibly it's not a good idea
to make people agree to world-editable contracts over there, though...
Also, note that I wasn't planning on abusing the mousetrap in question,
just seeing how many people I could bag with it. Now that it's just me
and ehird, though, abusing it is likely to be the first thing on my
mind, unless we come to some sort of private agreement...
On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 19:17 +0000, Elliott Hird wrote:
> "You also agree (binding under the rules of the nomic Agora) to the
> public document submitted to Agora on December 25 2008 by ais523
> whose title was "The Small Partial Mousetrap", and agree to be bound
> by it as an Agoran binding private contract."
Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:
Blatantly guilty. bring it on.
Gratuitous Evidence by Wooble:
I request that the Notary or one of the parties to the Scam Secrecy
Contract provide me with a copy of the text as it existed at the time
this CFJ was called.
Judge Wooble's Arguments:
Neither the Notary nor any party to the contract provided me with a
copy, but I'll judge without one.
It seems incredibly unlikely that when entering into a contract with
someone who's breached as many contracts as ehird has ais523
reasonably expected em to abide by the terms of the contract. Affairs
proceded exactly as should be expected by any reasonable observer of
I enter the null judgement.
Appellant Pavitra's Arguments:
I intend, with 2 Support, to appeal this judgement. It establishes the
precedent that consistently, serially ignoring the rules is rewarded
by a general exemption from the rules flouted. If this is an
appropriate judgement, then the equity justice system has become a
mockery of itself.
(But then, perhaps that was precisely H. Judge Wooble's point.)
I suggest that H. CotC Murphy include the a-d thread on this case in
the database as arguments.
[CotC: see below]
Affairs proceeded as envisioned by any reasonable observer of the
game, quite possibly, but not as envisioned by the contract. Which I
suspect was the point: ehird might be expected to violate the
contract, but only if e's willing to face a hostile equation.
Just commenting; I'm not involved with the scam and, considering
ehird's deregistration, I doubt it's worth appealing.
Indeed. It could be said that the purpose of *any* contract is to
enforce trust in cases where people aren't inherently trustworthy.
The problem in a case like this is that there's no way for the equity
court to actually restore equity; I can't very well order ehird to
unreveal the secret information. A simple punishment by means of
creating an obligation on ehird that is impossible for em to meet
would be an alternative, although R1742 tells us it would be
manifestly unfair to bring such criminal punishment, so I'd expect a
criminal court in a case brought for not meeting that punitive
obligation to sentence DISCHARGE.
Oh I'm not arguing with a null result; I don't in fact have an opinion
on the equity there. I'm just pointing out the error in reasoning in
saying "a contract isn't enforceable because one party should have
envisioned the other party being inherently untrustworthy". Arguably,
contract law is all about applying penalties to people might be
Perhaps the issue is just the definition of "envisioned by contract"
versus "envisioned by its parties". If I say "I signed this contract
because I envisioned you might break the deal otherwise" it's wrong to
say "because you envisioned that I might break this contract; the
breakage was envisioned by the contract and therefore not a breach.")
Appellant woggle's Arguments:
I support this. Inability to construct an equitable resolution now
that the cat is out of the bag and ehird is a non-player or ais523's
apparent unwilliness to provide the text of the contract might be
reasonable reasons for a null judgment, but ehird's history should not
Appellant G.'s Arguments:
[excerpts from discussion thread mentioned]:
> Affairs proceeded as envisioned by any reasonable observer of the
> game, quite possibly, but not as envisioned by the contract. Which I
> suspect was the point: ehird might be expected to violate the
> contract, but only if e's willing to face a hostile equation.
> Oh I'm not arguing with a null result; I don't in fact have an opinion
> on the equity there. I'm just pointing out the error in reasoning in
> saying "a contract isn't enforceable because one party should have
> envisioned the other party being inherently untrustworthy". Arguably,
> contract law is all about applying penalties to people might be
> Perhaps the issue is just the definition of "envisioned by contract"
> versus "envisioned by its parties". If I say "I signed this contract
> because I envisioned you might break the deal otherwise" it's wrong to
> say "because you envisioned that I might break this contract; the
> breakage was envisioned by the contract and therefore not a breach.")
Appellant ais523's Arguments:
Hmm... I support, although the original judgement amused me, and it's
hard to see how to equate against someone who's deregistered.
Maybe equitable would be an equation that states that ehird SHALL not
break contracts, so that future breaches could be a criminal punishment.
Also, I'll hopefully remember to send the text of the contract to the
judge in question, as the Notary still seems to be missing.
Judge Wooble's Arguments:
ehird SHALL transfer 27 coins to ais523 as punitive damages for
violating the scam secrecy contract. ais523 may act on behalf of
ehird to satisfy this obligation.