Index ← 3790 CFJ 3791 3792 → text
===============================  CFJ 3791  ===============================

      As a result of the quoted messages, Gaelan and twg are parties to
      a contract with the text in Gaelan's message.


Caller:                        Alexis

Judge:                         Jason Cobb
Judgement:                     TRUE



Called by Alexis:                                 08 Jan 2020 20:34:12
Assigned to Jason Cobb:                           12 Jan 2020 21:27:05
Judged TRUE by Jason Cobb:                        14 Jan 2020 01:42:27


Caller's Arguments:

The rules explicitly prohibit a contract with only party.
Therefore, even if Gaelan's ISTID would succeed, e could not have made a
contract containing only one party, and if e did, the rules would have
destroyed it. On the other hand, e clearly expressed the intent to be 
bound by the contract, and therefore arguably twg's acceptance was 
actually what brought such a contract into existence.

Caller's Evidence:

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Gaelan wrote:
> > TTttPF
> >
> > Also, I create the following contract: {
> > Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s 
> > behalf as described below.
> >
> > Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions,
> > subject to the following conditions:
> > * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a
> > message to a discussion forum
> > * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24 
> > hours
> > * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by 
> > sending
> > a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was not labelled as
> > a
> > draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
> > * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after 
> > the message to the discussion forum
> >
> > Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
> > }
> I join/agree to this contract.
> -twg


Judge Jason Cobb's Arguments:

The only two people who have expressed an intent to be bound by Gaelan's
contract are Gaelan emself and twg.

I accept the caller's argument that Gaelan did not EFFECTIVELY created a
contract, as there was no other party at that time.

To determine whether twg created a contract with eir message, we must
examine the definition in Rule 1742:

Are these two people a "group of two or more consenting persons"? As far
as I am aware, both of them are persons, and they are both consenting,
as it is reasonably obvious that Gaelan wanted the contract to come into
force (given another party joining), and twg tried to join the possible

Is this agreement an "agreement among themselves"? It Yes, as each party
agreed to the same contract text.

Was the agreement made with the intention that it be "binding upon [the
parties] and be governed by the rules"? Yes. Both parties freely entered
into the agreement, with Gaelan having intent to be bound by eir
authorization to allow others to act on eir behalf, and with twg wishing
to gain access to that authorization. It is also clear that the
agreement was intended to be governed by the rules, as the document
purports to allow acting-on-behalf, which is something that can be
authorized by the Contracts rule, and both messages were sent to Agora's
Public Forum.

Even if no person announced that e was creating a contract, there
nevertheless exists an agreement that meets Rule 1742's definition of a
"contract". TRUE.

Judge Jason Cobb's Evidence:

Excerpt from Rule 1742 (Contracts):

>       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. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to
>       become a party to a contract without eir agreement. For the
>       purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and
>       agreement specified by contract.

Rule 2519 (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.