==============================  CFJ 1307  ==============================

    Annabel's message, on or about 31 May 2001, reading in part "So I
    transfer all of my currencies to the Bank, and then deregister" did
    not have the effect of transferring any Currencies.

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

Caller:                                 Kelly

Judge:                                  Evantine
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Elysion
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Kelly:                        10 Jul 2001 18:09:24 GMT
Assigned to Evantine:                   15 Jul 2001 01:26:22 GMT
Evantine recused:                       02 Aug 2001 01:20:20 GMT
Assigned to Elysion:                    02 Aug 2001 01:23:41 GMT
Judged TRUE by Elysion:                 08 Aug 2001 15:50:29 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I refer the Judge to the holding in CFJ 1302 and note that this
situation is exactly analogous: a reasonable person would conclude
that Annabel did not know what Currencies e intended to transfer, but
merely intended to transfer whatever e had (unknown to em at the time)
so as to achieve a desired result.

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

Caller's Evidence:

From: Lenore McAllister <lenore@sdf.lonestar.org>
Sender: owner-agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
To: agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Subject: Re: BUS: Annabel = Quiet
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 01:58:59 +0000


On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:25:24AM -0400, Garner, Will wrote:
> I make Annabel Quiet.

I don't want to become a Zombie, but I don't have enough time to play
Agora. So I transfer all of my currencies to the Bank, and then deregister.

--
Lenore McAllister
lenore@sdf.lonestar.org

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

Judge Elysion's Arguments:

Rule 1598(b) and (c) state:

      (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:
          (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by
              the transferor; and
          (2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a
              Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to
              execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect
              to all of the Properties involved.

      (c) A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor
          receives a valid Notice of Transfer.

By (c) and the fact that Annabel's messages was sent to a PF, the statement
is true if Annabel's message did not include a valid Notice of Transfer.
(b)(1) requires a NoT to "specify" a nonempty set of Properties owned by the
transferor. www.m-w.com provides just two definitions of "specify":

    1 : to name or state explicitly or in detail
    2 : to include as an item in a specification

And two for "specification":

    1 : the act or process of specifying
    2 a : a detailed precise presentation of something or of a plan or
          proposal for something -- usually used in plural
      b : a statement of legal particulars (as of charges or of contract
          terms); also : a single item of such statement
    c : a written description of an invention for which a patent is sought

Annabel identified the set-building criterium for the Properties e intended
to transfer: all Properties e owned at the time. This is a well-defined set,
and given perfect information about Property ownership it is this Judge's
opinion that it would be sufficient to "specify" the Properties to be
transferred. Unfortunately, we do not have perfect information. Thus, it may
no longer possible to determine precisely what Properties are being
transferred. We may or not be in error in what we believe is the correct
gamestate, but we do not know (unless we ratify) whether there is any error.
Does the statement refer to all Properties e actually owned? all Properties
e was reported as owning? If the two cases are distinct, which is likely
given that Officers occasionally make mistakes, then Annabel did not satisfy
the first definition of "specify".

The second definition of "specify" leads us to "specification". The first
definition is circular. As for the second, (a) is not true in this case, and
(b) and (c) do not apply. Thus, Annabel did not "specify" which Properties
were to be transferred, and thus eir NoT was not valid. This implies that
the statement is true.

Thus, I hereby judge the statement in question to be TRUE.



Since Notices of Transfer still lack a well-developed body of common law to
govern them, I shall consider some points raised in the discussion from my
proto-judgment. These represent this Judge's opinion only, not any official
ruling. I hope, however, that they may prove useful to future Judges.

Goethe suggested two alternate ways of interpreting Annabel's statement:

1.  "I make a definite set of transfers of every property I know I have,
     which are A instances of Currency X, B instances of Currency
     Y...etc."

2.  "If I have no instances of currency X, I transfer no instances;
     If I have one instance of currency X, I transfer 1 instance;
     If I have two...etc."

(2), as Goethe points out, is invalid by CFJ 1302, a precedent which was not
appealed and which, to the best of this Judge's knowledge, has not been
seriously challenged. Goethe also says "[c]ase 1 is a definite intent to
transfer a set # of currencies, and hence valid," but I must disagree with
this statement. (1) requires the Recordkeepor to guess the values the
transferror had in mind (unless the transferror listed the Properties e
intended to transfer, but in which case we wouldn't be in this mess).
Although it is likely the value last reported and modified by all transfers
since the report, this begs even more questions. What if there was a
transfer made solely to the Recordkeepor since the last report? What if the
transferror had not yet received a message containing a NoT when e made the
attempt? What if the transferror assumed an earlier transfer had succeeded
when it actually failed (or vice versa)? Unless the Recordkeepor is psychic
or the transferror includes an explicit listing, (1) is not a constitute a
valid NoT in this Judge's opinion.

Granted, the fact that these two mappings are invalid does not make _all_
possible mappings or even the attempted NoT invalid. Oerjan presented a
third mapping, which is indeed valid.

3.  "For each of the Currencies I know that I possess (i.e. Stems,
     Indulgences, Papyri and VEs), I perform n transfers of 1 MUQ of
     that Currency, where n is a number (e.g. 1000000000) which I know
     to be at least the number of MUQs I have of that Currency."

(3) would have the same effect as (2) if the latter were valid (assuming n
is greater than the actual quantity of currency possessed). However, (1) is
a NoT based on the pragmatic gamestate and (3) is based on the platonic. If
the believed gamestate differs from the actual gamestate, (1) and (3) may be
distinct. Thus, the statement might have mappings to valid NoTs that lead to
distinct gamestates.

Murphy presented yet another mapping of the statment:

4.  "Annabel's statement naturally maps to "For each Currency in which my
     holdings are N > 0, I transfer N of that Currency to the Bank".

However, this is equivalent to to (3) for sufficiently large n.



Also, I recommend that someone mint a Currency with no direct relevance to
the rest of the gamestate, proceed to make ambiguously worded transfer
attempts, and CFJ on the results. That way, we could build up a body of
judicial precedents to follow without giving the Recordkeepors of major
Currencies any headaches (at least, no more than are normally caused by
being a Recordkeepor in Agora).

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