Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2769

===================  CFJ 2769 (Interest Index = 0)  ====================

    The IBA is a player.

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

Caller:                                 Yally

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED

Appeal:                                 2769a
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Judge:                                  coppro
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Yally:                        27 Feb 2010 00:17:48 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         27 Feb 2010 17:05:40 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by G.:              01 Mar 2010 16:28:08 GMT
Appealed by comex:                      02 Mar 2010 01:13:08 GMT
Appealed by coppro:                     02 Mar 2010 01:27:16 GMT
Appealed by Yally:                      02 Mar 2010 02:35:36 GMT
Appeal 2769a:                           02 Mar 2010 02:35:36 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   06 Mar 2010 19:24:47 GMT
Assigned to comex:                      06 Mar 2010 20:11:51 GMT
comex recused:                          12 Mar 2010 17:23:07 GMT
Assigned to coppro:                     14 Mar 2010 09:04:16 GMT
Judged TRUE by coppro:                  21 Mar 2010 19:55:20 GMT

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

UNDETERMINED (see CFJ 2768).  -G.

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

Judge coppro's Arguments:

CFJs 2769 and 2772, which are effectively identical, are a stickier 
issue. They question whether or not the IBA ceased to be an entity and 
thus a player when the rules defining contracts were repealed. The 
definition of a contract was, prior to the repeal of Rule 1742, "[a 
binding agreement] goverened by the rules". This is key because it sets 
a fundamental principle that the rules did not provide for contracts' 
existence, merely their governance.

Binding agreements not governed by the rules can and do exist, and are 
therefore valid Agoran entities. By legal convention, a binding 
agreement (I will avoid the term 'contract' when referring to real-world 
agreements) needs no physical existence; it can exist without any 
document behind it, such as when an agreement is formed at a grocery 
store to purchase a box of donuts.

Rule 1586 provides for a means for an entity to cease to exist if the 
document backing it no longer defines that entity, but the real-world 
law of binding agreements indicates that agreements exist without any 
backing document; a document may exist to clarify the agreement, but it 
is not fatal to the existence of the agreement if the document is lost 
or destroyed. There are a few cases where a textual agreement is 
required for it to be enforceable (see the Statute of Frauds), but the 
lack of a text copy is not always fatal to the agreement (G 400 Holdings 
Ltd. v. Yeoman Development Company Limited, 2008 ABQB 667)

In light of this, I find that the IBA and contracts in general did not 
cease to exist as entities when Rule 1742 was repealed, although they 
did cease to be subject generally to Agoran law. Accordingly, I judge 
CFJs 2769 and 2772 to both be TRUE.

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