Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2772

===================  CFJ 2772 (Interest Index = 0)  ====================

    The IBA is a player

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  coppro
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       01 Mar 2010 17:36:28 GMT
Assigned to comex:                      06 Mar 2010 16:41:58 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

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

Caller's Arguments:

As far as I know, since contracts were repealed, the IBA's Citizenship
switch has never been flipped; I can't find a rule that would imply that
it could flip platonically, and nobody has tried to flip it
pragmatically. Therefore, the CFJ comes down to the existence or
otherwise of the switch in question. Rule 869 makes it clear that this
is equivalent to whether the IBA is an entity.

Rule 1586 provides for an entity to cease to exist if the documents
defining it are repealed or amended to cease defining it. This is a
rather confusing test in this case; the backing document for the IBA can
either be considered a legal fiction (in which case it may or may not
still exist), or an actual message that created it (in which case it
definitely does). There is a sort of confusion with contract law here;
if an actual document, in someone's email inbox, creates a contract, how
can it then be amended? On the other hand, if it's a legal fiction, what
rule creates/created that legal fiction, and does that legal fiction
still exist? In any case, rule 1586 does not seem to cause the repeal of
the backing document of another backing document to cause any entities
defined by the backing document to cease to exist; if the IBA's backing
document has disappeared, it wasn't by being amended (the IBA hasn't
been amended since contracts ceased to exist) or by being repealed (not
itself being a rule). So I can't find an interpretation in which rule
1586 itself causes the IBA to cease to exist.

Therefore, the point that remains to check, is whether the IBA continues
to exist as an entity, despite not being an Agoran contract any more. It
certainly seems possible for a construct within a nomic to survive the
downfall of that nomic (Nomic World is dead, but the FRC still exists
and is thriving); but it's hard to tell to what extent a former Agoran
contract can continue to be an entity. In particular, is it deserving of
a Citizenship switch?

Also of relevance here may be CFJ 1992 (which found that any thing was
an entity). So does "anything" include the IBA? Does "any thing"?

Even if the IBA is deregistered, this case continues to be relevant. For
instance, can we transfer assets to it? That also depends on whether or
not it's an entity.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Excerpt from rule 869:
{{{
      Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered
      (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar.  A player is
      an entity whose citizenship is Registered.  Changes to
      citizenship are secured.
}}}
Excerpt from rule 1586:
{{{
      If the documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such
      that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its
      properties cease to exist.

      If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
      still define that entity but with different properties, then
      that entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever
      extent is possible under the new definitions.
}}}

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

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.

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