Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2742

===================  CFJ 2742 (Interest Index = 1)  ====================

    In the hypothetical situation described in evidence, player 1
    CAN transfer at least two Dunce Caps on December 11, 2009.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  coppro
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by Murphy:                       24 Nov 2009 21:52:23 GMT
Assigned to coppro:                     29 Nov 2009 17:53:34 GMT
Judged FALSE by coppro:                 29 Nov 2009 20:26:15 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

How does the fungibility of Dunce Caps, even those with different
owners (R2253, which takes precedence over R2262), affect R2262's
attempt to restrict their transfer?

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

Hypothetical situation referenced by the statements:

  * On December 1, 2009, players 1 and 2 each receive one Dunce Cap.

  * On December 6, 2009, players 1 and 3 each receive one Dunce Cap.

  * During December 2009, Dunce Cap holdings do not change in any
    other way (except for the possible transfers referenced by the
    statements), and none of these players is ever Dealor nor acts
    as Dealor in any way (e.g. deputisation, act-on-behalf contract).

Rule 2253/5 (Power=2)
Cards
[relevant excerpt]

      Card instances of the same class are fungible.

Rule 2262/9 (Power=2)
The Deck of Justice
[relevant excerpt]

       * Dunce Cap        - (Effect) Holding this card is a Losing
                            Condition.  The holder of this card CAN
                            NOT voluntarily destroy it by
                            announcement, and CAN NOT transfer it
                            unless e has held it for at least one
                            week.

========================================================================

Judge coppro's Arguments:

The caller has questioned how the requirement that a Dunce Cap card 
cannot be transferred unless held for a week interacts with the 
fungibility of Dunce Caps.

According to Wikipedia, fungibility "is the property of a good or a 
commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. 
Examples of highly fungible commodities are crude oil, wheat, orange 
juice, precious metals, and currencies." Currencies are the particular 
example I shall pursue.

In normal trade, currency is currency is currency. If I have a $20 bill, 
it makes no difference if I am trying to spend that specific bill or any 
other $20 bill - it is still worth $20. The courts will not enforce a 
contract for a specific fungible asset (note, however, that some pieces 
of currency may, due to rarity, be worth more than their printed value; 
in such a case they have lost their fungibility).

However, it is not the case that an item being fungible with another 
item necessarily means that the item is completely identical in every 
way to that item. Every $20 bill is a distinct physical asset, with a 
different serial number. Law enforcement sometimes tracks them by serial 
number in order to expose crime - despite being fungible, they still 
have some identifying properties.

As such, I find that while Dunce Caps are fungible, that does not mean 
that you cannot distinguish between them on some property. Player 1 in 
particular could transfer either of his Dunce Caps (them being 
interchageable), but only one.

========================================================================