Index ← 3880 CFJ 3881 3882 → text
===============================  CFJ 3881  ===============================

      ATMunn acted on behalf of Aris to transfer 10 coins today.


Caller:                        G.

Judge:                         Murphy
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by G.:                                     29 Aug 2020 21:09:57
Assigned to Murphy:                               30 Aug 2020 18:42:04
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                           07 Sep 2020 22:31:20


[Linked to CFJ 3882]

Caller's Evidence:

Contract by Aris allowing for a 10 coin transfer:

Notice given by ATMunn:

Notice given by G.:

Attempt at action after the notice period had passed, by ATMunn:

Attempt at action after the notice period had passed, by G.:

Caller's Arguments:

ATMunn wrote:
> Having given sufficient notice, I do so.

G. wrote:
> That's ISID - where's the proof and where's the claim and what's the
> valid judgement?  (I don't see any evidence that "file a proof of claim"
> is a term of art).

ATMunn wrote:
> Doesn't matter - the contract said it was a thing that could be done.

G. (edited response):
It says it can be done with Notice.  Notices require specifications, which
you haven't given.

For example, R991 says that you can call a CFJ specifying the statement
to be inquired into, by announcement.  If I say "I call a CFJ specifying
a statement to inquire into" then I actually haven't done so, even
though the rule literally says that.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

While there may be some leeway in how much specification is provided in
a notice of intent vs. when carrying out said intent, things definitely
need to at least be specified by the latter time. This transfer would
only be possible "as explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the
contract's body" (Rule 1742, Contracts).

As neither the contract nor the rules define "proof", nor "claim"
(outside the phrase "claim of error"), I interpret them according to
their ordinary-language definitions. ATMunn's attempt at action after
the notice period was not a "proof of claim of a valid judgement" just
because it claimed to be one.