==============================  CFJ 1364  ==============================

    Once any Bond of a given species becomes redeemed, all Bonds of that
    species become redeemed.

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

Caller:                                 Syllepsis

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 1364a
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Syllepsis:                    08 May 2002 20:10:17 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     10 May 2002 04:28:48 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 10 May 2002 04:39:33 GMT
Appealed by Steve:                      10 May 2002 04:59:38 GMT
Appealed by root:                       10 May 2002 05:06:26 GMT
Appealed by Maud:                       10 May 2002 05:08:29 GMT
Appeal 1364a:                           10 May 2002 05:08:29 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   28 May 2002 21:00:31 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         28 May 2002 21:48:30 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     31 May 2002 23:34:47 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

R1966 states:

"All Bonds of a given species are fungible."

This means that any property having contractual relevance must be the
same for all Bonds of a given species.

R1969 states:

      When the issuer of a Bond receives an unredeemed, mature Bond
      from another entity where the transfer was executed for the
      purpose of redemption, the Bond in question is thereby redeemed,
      and the issuer incurs a debt to the transferor of that Bond for
      the face value of the bond.

Since the Bond in question here is thereby redeemed, and Bonds of a
given species are fungible, then all Bonds of said species are also
redeemed.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1966/0 (Power=1)
Bonds

      Bonds are Property.  Each Bond, in addition to being a Property,
      has the following characteristics:
      (a) an issuer (which must be a Player or an entity with an
          Executor);
      (b) a face value, expressed as the positive multiple of the MUQ
          of some Currency; and
      (c) a maturity date.

      A species of Bond consists of all Bonds with the same issuer,
      face value and maturity date.  All Bonds of a given species are
      fungible.  In any transaction involving Bonds, it is sufficient
      to identify the Bonds involved by species.

      The Recordkeeper of Bonds shall be the Usuror.

      A Bond is mature on and after its maturity date, and is immature
      prior to that date.  If the maturity date of a Bond is specified
      only as a date, it shall be presumed to mature at midnight UTC
      of that day (the beginning of that day).


Rule 1969/0 (Power=1)
Redemption of Bonds

      Any entity which possesses an unredeemed, mature Bond may redeem
      it by transferring the Bond to its Issuer, expressing in eir
      Notice of Transfer the purpose of redeeming the Bond.

      When the issuer of a Bond receives an unredeemed, mature Bond
      from another entity where the transfer was executed for the
      purpose of redemption, the Bond in question is thereby redeemed,
      and the issuer incurs a debt to the transferor of that Bond for
      the face value of the bond.

      If the issuer of a Bond receives an unredeemed, immature Bond
      from another entity where the transfer was executed for the
      purpose of redemption, the issuer incurs a debt to the
      transferor for that Bond; but if the Bond in question matures
      while still in the possession of the issuer, this debt is
      cancelled and the issuer incurs a debt to the transferor of that
      Bond for the face value of the Bond, as if the transfer had been
      made at the time the Bond matured.

      Once redeemed, a Bond may not be further transferred.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

"Fungible" does not mean "indistinguishable".  In particular, my Stems
are distinguishable from Steve's Stems, and similarly my Bonds of species
X are distinguishable from Steve's Bonds of species X.  FALSE.

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

Appellant Steve's Arguments:

Too quick. 'Fungible' *does* mean 'functionally interchangeable'.
Swapping a Stem of mine with a Stem of yours has no effect, because we
both get left with Stem. But swapping a redeemed Bond of mine with an
unredeemed Bond of yours does have an effect - or ought to.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

The Court feels that the Caller, as a Proud Student of the Great
Discipline of Physics, should know better.

The Caller's argument is that the contractural fungibility of the Bonds
transforms all Bonds of a species from Unredeemed into Redeemed as soon
as one is so transformed as (previously) provided by the Rules.

We have an Agoran custom of treating Property as tangible goods, rather
than as abstact concepts.  For example, we disallow destroying negative
properties to create positive properties.  It is good to be reminded of
this tangibility, as the virtual nature of these tangible goods makes it
tempting to explore abstract but tangibly impossible operations.

For example, the fact that one dollar can be exchanged for 100 pennies,
and either can be requested as fungible items to satisfy a debt, does
not transform 100 pieces of metal into a piece of paper, nor vice versa.
The Physicist should know that a more energetic process is required.

Further, the Caller's argument, if true, could be applied to the reverse
case:  that as long as at least one Bond (of same species) remains
Unredeemed, they all remain Unredeemed.  This is a contradiction.

So, while it *might* be possible that the former Rules allowed  the
functional exchange of redeemed and unredeemed bonds, this functional
equivalence should not be confused with a mechanical and tangible
"switch" of a Bond from Unredeemed to Redeemed.

That tangible switch only applied to individual Bonds when transferred
as specified.  Again, the Court feels that the Caller's grasp of physics
should lead em to understand that we Disapprove of the
"Action-at-a-Distance" that transforming all conspecific Bonds would
imply.  The Court returns a judgement of FALSE.

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