==============================  CFJ 1221  ==============================

    There are no Payments Orders in Stems naming Peekee as the Payor[.]

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

Caller:                                 Peekee

Judge:                                  Wes
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Peekee:                       24 May 2000 11:35:33 GMT
Assigned to Wes:                        25 May 2000 12:04:33 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wes:                    28 May 2000 23:41:45 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

I hereby Transfer 20 Stems to the bank to satisfy the Payment Order I owe in
that Currency.

(This will be denoted Transfer 1)

Now please note,


Rule 1598/8 (Power=1)
Transfer Orders

      A Transfer Order is an Order requiring the Recordkeepor of a
      Currency to note the transfer of units of that Currency from one
      entity to another.  A valid Transfer Order specifies exactly one
      source entity, exactly one destination entity, exactly one
      Currency, and a number of units of that Currency which is a
      positive multiple of that Currency's MUQ.  If a Transfer Order
      purports to satisfy a particular Payment Order and either that
      Payment Order does not exist or cannot be satisfied by the
      Transfer Order, then the Transfer Order is invalid.  Other Rules
      may specify conditions which cause a Transfer Order to be deemed
      invalid.

As far as this Rule goes the Transfer 1 is valid.


Rule 1817/0 (Power=1)
Recordkeepors' Obedience to Transfer Orders

      A Recordkeepor is required to abide by all valid Transfer Orders
      submitted by the Executor of the owner of the units of Currency
      to be transferred (or, with respect to any entity which lacks an
      Executor, by any other person empowered by the Rules to execute
      Transfer Orders on the behalf of such entities), except for
      those transfers which would result in an entity possessing a
      negative quantity of Currency.  Transfers shall be noted on the
      Recordkeepor's records in the order in which they are received
      by the Recordkeepor.


Now this Rule does not state that Transfer 1 is invalid rather that the
Recordkeepor is not "required" to abide by it.  This implies that e may
choose to abide by it.  Also it should be noted that there is nothing to
suggest that the Transfer has not been successfully executed.


Rule 1732/3 (Power=1)
Satisfaction of Payment Orders

      A Payment Order is satisfied when a Transfer Order to the payee
      of that Payment Order for the currency and amount named in that
      Payment Order is successfully executed, provided that

      (i) when that Transfer Order was submitted, its submitter
      clearly indicated that that Transfer Order was being submitted
      for the purpose of satisfying the Payment Order in question;

      (ii) the Transfer Order has not satisfied any other Payment
      Order;

      (iii) the Payment Order has not already been satisfied or
      vacated;

      (iv) the Transfer Order would not have resulted in an entity
      possessing a negative quantity of Currency.


Now I have successfully executed a Transfer Order to the payee of a Payment
Order for the correct amount of currency.  (It is not clear that this even
requires the Transfer to be valid, but I think it is without question that
it was executed)  It is clear that the first three conditions are met.
Condition (iv) is less clear though,

If the Recordkeepor does not abide by the above Transfer then I would argue
that condition (iv) is met also.

If the Recordkeepor for stems decides to abide by the above transfer then I
might appear that I would possess a negative quantity of Currency.  However
I argue that this is not the case, as it is impossible to possess a negative
quantity of Currency.  Further more even if by some abstract means it was
possible to possess a negative quantity of Currency, then it would seem
equally possible to make payment Orders of negative amounts.  As all the all
the Rules rely on phrases such as "a number of units of that Currency" I
would always take this to mean a positive amount but if it was possible to
own a negative amount of Currency then as the same phrase is used in,


Rule 1578/5 (Power=1)
Currency Recordkeepors

      Each Currency shall have associated with it a Player (the
      Recordkeepor).  The Recordkeepor of a Currency is required
      to maintain a record of the number of units of that Currency
      possessed by each entity which possesses them, along with
      recent transfers of that Currency, as detailed elsewhere.
<snip>

It would seem that if it is possible to own a negative number of units of
currency the equally Transfers for negative amounts must work also.  All of
which is strongly against game tradition.   However, if it is the case
consider the following,

I hereby transfer -40 Stems to the Bank

(This is a Transfer Order if possessing negative quantities of Currency are
allowed.  I will denote it Transfer 2.)

I hereby Transfer 20 Stems to the bank to satisfy the Payment Order I owe in
that Currency.

(Let this be denoted Transfer 3.)

So if possessing negative amounts of Currency is allowed then Transfer 1
will not have met condition (iv) from Rule 1732 however if the possession of
negative amounts of currency is allowed then I argue by the similarity of
language used that negative Transfer are also allowed.   As such Transfer 2
works and Transfer 3 satisfies the Payment Order.  If not then Transfer 2
fails and Transfer 3 is invalid as the Payment Order has been satisfied.

Now the only argument I can think of against this is that Transfer 1 was not
successfully executed is the Recordkeepor chooses not to abide by it.
However, the way the Rules are written suggests that even successfully
executed Orders can be invalid, vacated, or otherwise caused to have no
effect.  So I see no reason why if the Recordkeepor should choose not to
abide by my Transfer that this would cause it to be not be successfully
executed.

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

Judge Wes's Arguments:

This Statement is really quite trivial. Regardless of whether the
Payment Order was satisfied, there is nothing to suggest that it no
longer exists. We therefore return a Judgement of FALSE.

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