=============================== CFJ 3664 ===============================
Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours.
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Barred: D. Margaux
Judge: twg
Judgement: TRUE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19:01
Assigned to twg: 01 Oct 2018 04:01:00
Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24:00
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts?
It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake
deals" be backed up by Agoran courts.
2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works -
by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and
is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows
it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked.
Caller's Evidence:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona wrote:
>
> > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my
> > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other
> > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to transfer
> > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September.
> >
> > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings wouldn't
> > survive and that would be a shame.
> >
> > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the economy
> > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who claimed
> > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them back
> > so I don't have to start from scratch.
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
> --
> D. Margaux
>
Judge twg's Arguments:
The caller refers to the following thread of messages:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona wrote:
>
> > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my
> > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other
> > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to transfer
> > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September.
> >
> > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings wouldn't
> > survive and that would be a shame.
> >
> > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the economy
> > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who claimed
> > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them back
> > so I don't have to start from scratch.
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
> --
> D. Margaux
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge twg's Arguments:
This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's
messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts",
for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the
caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been
INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on
behalf are contracts and zombiehood.
Rule 1742/19 states, in part:
Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
contract.
We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of
requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a
contract:
1) Is it an "agreement"?
2) Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it?
3) Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be
binding upon them and governed by the rules?
I will investigate each of these requirements in turn.
First, do these message constitute an "agreement" between Corona and
D. Margaux? Rule 1742 says that "agreement includes both consent and
agreement specified by contract". However, to apply this as a definition
of a countable noun would suggest that "an agreement" can mean either
"a consent" or "an agreement specified by contract" - the first being
nonsensical and the second a circular definition. This court therefore
believes that the intent of this sentence is to define the _action_ of
agreement, viz. the method by which a contract may be modified or
terminated, and recommends that Rule 1742 be amended to reduce the
confusion caused by this terminology.
Lacking a rule-bast definition for an "agreement", we thus turn to past
judicial precedent. In CFJ 3315, faced also with the problem of the lack
of definition for this word, the Honourable Judge scshunt noted that the
rules clearly assumed the existence of the external concept of an
"agreement", and held that:
...given the lack of reference to agreements within the rules, it
appears to be that the interpretation of "agreement" in this CFJ
and in the rules should be given maximum latitude, so djanatyn's
statement can be interpreted as an agreement (such an
interpretation being of questionable value for any purpose other
than the analysis of this inquiry, however).
This court sees no reason to overturn the precedent set in CFJ 3315,
and therefore confirms the Honourable Judge scshunt's ruling. It is
clear that both Corona and D. Margaux believed this exchange of messages
to constitute a contract, as both took actions on the assumption that
D. Margaux's action to transfer Corona's liquid assets to emself was
EFFECTIVE; and therefore this exchange matched their understandings
of the concept of an "agreement". The first requirement for the
exchange to be considered a contract is therefore met.
Secondly, did both Corona and D. Margaux consent to the agreement?
"Consent" is explicitly defined by Rule 2519/0, "Consent":
A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This
agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from
context that the person wanted the agreement to take place.
Corona stated that e "g[a]ve permission" to any player to fulfill the
other half of the agreement. This is an unambiguous statement of
consent. D. Margaux, meanwhile, attempted to perform an action that
would be POSSIBLE only if e did, in fact, consent to the agreement;
game custom is that this constitutes valid implied consent. Both Corona
and D. Margaux were thus consenting parties to the agreement.
Finally, did both Corona and D. Margaux intend for the agreement to be
binding upon them and governed by the rules? Again, their later actions
confirm that they believed (and hence intended for) their agreement to
have been a contract, which by definition would have been binding upon
them and governed by the rules.
The above requirements all having been met, I judge CFJ 3644 TRUE.
==========================================================================