==============================  CFJ 1225  ==============================

    The Transfer Orders which Peekee issued in the email identified by
    Message-ID: <20000524113533.52162.qmail@hotmail.com> were improperly
    or invalidly executed.

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

Caller:                                 Wes

Judge:                                  Palnatoke
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Wes:                          28 May 2000 23:41:45 GMT
Assigned to Palnatoke:                  29 May 2000 10:08:17 GMT
Judged TRUE by Palnatoke:               30 May 2000 21:24:20 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Although the Rules are quite ambiguous regarding whether or not
Peekee may have been successful in satisfying the Payment Order
in question, they do provide a reasonable Appeal process for
this type of situation in Rule 1809.

Of course, once the Transfer Orders have been Vacated, they
will cease to have *any* effect, including the possible effect
of satisfying a particular Payment Order.

We politely request that the Judge Vacate any or all of the
Transfer Orders in question, per Rule 1809.

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

Caller's Evidence:

>From owner-agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au  Wed May 24 04:42:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>
Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.16])
        by mail3.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA21337
        for <magika@aracnet.com>; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:42:09 -0700
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
        by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA21230
        for agora-business-list; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:29:19 GMT
Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1])
        by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA21227
        for <agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:29:17
GMT
Received: (from mail@localhost)
        by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id VAA77305
        for <agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>; Wed, 24 May 2000 21:36:13
+1000 (EST)
Received: from law-f101.hotmail.com(209.185.131.164) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au
via smap (V2.1)
        id xma077303; Wed, 24 May 00 21:35:46 +1000
Received: (qmail 52163 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2000 11:35:33 -0000
Message-ID: <20000524113533.52162.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 194.83.240.42 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
        Wed, 24 May 2000 04:35:33 PDT
X-Originating-IP: [194.83.240.42]
From: "Alan Riddell" <pkpeekee@hotmail.com>
To: agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Subject: BUS: Transfers and then a CFJ
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:35:33 BST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Status: RO

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.


I hereby make a CFJ on the following statement,

"There are no Payment Orders in Stems naming Peekee as the Payor"

With arguments and evidence as above.


Peekee

PS  I hope there is not anything obvious that I have left out here.

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

Judge Palnatoke's Arguments:

The TOs in question are:
TO1: I hereby Transfer 20 Stems to the bank to satisfy the Payment Order I owe
in that Currency.
TO2: I hereby transfer -40 Stems to the Bank (This is a Transfer Order if
possessing negative quantities of Currency are allowed.)
TO3: I hereby Transfer 20 Stems to the bank to satisfy the Payment Order I owe
in that Currency.


Rule 1598/8 says, in part:

                                                 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.

Rule 1732/3 says, in part:

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

Since Peekee had no Stems at the time of TO1, the TO would have resulted in em
possessing a negative quantity of Currency. Therefore the PO could not be
satisfied. Hence, the TO is invalid.

As to TO2:
This is only a TO if possessing a negative quantity of a Currency is allowed.
Rule 1467/6 says, in part:
     There may exist Currencies, which are classes of entities.
In other words, a Currency consists of a number of similar units, and a
negative number of units cannot exist. A similar situation: We can imagine the
existance of one Peekee, or no Peekee, or any positive number of Peekees, but
there cannot be a negative number of Peekees.

So, TO2 is not a TO.
Besides, since transfering -40 Stems to the Bank seems to be the equivalent of
transfering 40 Stems *from* the Bank, and Peekee is not the Executor of the
said Bank, this TO would be invalid, too - and Peekee would probably be guilty
of Misrepresentation.

With TO1 invalid and TO2 not a TO, the situation for TO3 is the same as for
TO1, so that one is invalid, too.

All in all, the Statement is TRUE.

The Caller moved that I Vacate the TOs in question, per Rule 1809. I hereby
do.

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

Judge Palnatoke's Evidence:

Rule 1467/6 (Power=1)
Definition of a Currency

     There may exist Currencies, which are classes of entities.
     Each Currency shall have a Minimum Unit Quantity, abbreviated
     MUQ, which shall be 1 unless otherwise specified.  All
     transfers and holdings of each Currency shall be rounded off to
     the nearest multiple of its MUQ.

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.

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.

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