Index ← 3907 CFJ 3908 3909 → text
===============================  CFJ 3908  ===============================

      The above amendment to "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" was successful.


Caller:                        ATMunn

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     TRUE



Called by ATMunn:                                 29 May 2021 00:26:07
Assigned to G.:                                   06 Jun 2021 16:15:08
Judged TRUE by G.:                                13 Jun 2021 14:25:09


[Linked to CFJ 3909]

Caller's Evidence:

On 5/27/2021 1:03 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I create the following contract named "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich":
> ----------
> Cuddlebeam is the sole party to this contract.
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> ----------
> I consent to modify the above contract by adding layers for all natural
> numbers, alternating bread and ham, following this example:
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 5: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 6: This is a layer of ham.
> etc.
> Note that I just need to *consent* to a modification, not spell it out
> entirely.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

1.  A contract doesn't have text, it has provisions.  By legal definition
a provision is a contract elements, but need not be in 1-1 correspondence
with a set text.  99% of the time this *will* be a set text, but it's not
an absolute requirement.

Example - set of public exchanges: "hey person X do you want to make a
binding agreement to trade my asset A for my asset B? I agree if you do."
 "Sure I agree".  That's a contract with clear understanding, but the
"provisions" aren't an exact match to a text.

Importantly, the legal definition of provision (proviso) is (surveying
various dictionaries) a "stipulation that requires action/introduces
conditions etc."  In a numbered text, numbered clauses that are entirely
flavor without requiring action might not be provisions at all.  Or
several clauses might add to one provision, etc.

2.  For a provision to be "fully available" as per R1742 there needs to be
sufficient information available for a judge to interpret any provision,
and the "understanding" of the whole.  Being able to say "I interpret the
Nth clause..." where N is part of well-defined and easily calculated[*]
infinite series is fine and sufficient to understand the "whole" agreement.

[*] easily calculated, I could tell you instantly for this contract what
the Nth clause of the text is, sufficient enough to interpret its full
legal effect, even if N is a googol or a googolplex.  If e.g. it depended
on the actual value of the googolith digit of pi, that's well-defined but
not easily calculated, so wouldn't be available.

3.  Therefore, the amendment of the contract to a fully defined process
with well-defined and easily calculated (though infinite) clauses was
fine.  I judge TRUE.

4.  The only difficulty is how the Notary publishes the "full provisions"
as per R2608.  But this is an orthogonal tracking issue, and it is likely
an IRRELEVANT matter as the rules are written now. The Notary can't be
punished for failing to do something impossible, and the report of
contracts does not self-ratify[**] - publishing a good faith effort to
describe the full contract (i.e. using the same standards for "fully
available" above and publishing the generating instructions) is in keeping
in standards of reporting should suffice - and by precedent, reports don't
have to be perfect to be considered reports.

[**] I think the promise section self-ratifies because promises are
assets, but pledges and contracts aren't/don't.