==============================  CFJ 1657  ==============================

    The term 'contract' as used in R2136 should be interpreted as
    synonymous with 'Agoran Contract'.


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Peter

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by omd:                          11 May 2007 01:19:47 GMT
Assigned to Peter:                      11 May 2007 06:38:06 GMT
Peter recused:                          31 May 2007 02:56:20 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     27 Jun 2007 21:32:51 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram:                 28 Jun 2007 15:14:07 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The normal legal definition of 'contract' is most similar to Agoran binding

The parts of rule 1742 under evidence seem to imply that 'contract' is
synonymous with 'agreement'.  R2109 may imply the opposite, although it
uses 'Contracts' as a proper noun.


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1742/4 (Power=1)
Agreements between Players
      A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has
      broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the
      A Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple
      independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall
      be dismissed.
Rule 2136/0 (Power=1)

      A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and
      identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other
      parties are its contestants.

      Points are a measure of a player's contentiousness.  The number
      of points possessed by a player is eir score.  When a player
      registers, eir score is set to zero.

      A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month
      to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a
      different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.

      A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing
      this fact.  Upon such an announcement, each player's score is
      set to zero.

Rule 2109/1 (Power=2)
Agoran Contracts
      All Rules regulating Contracts that are inconsistent with this
      Rule are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.

Created by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007


Judge Zefram's Arguments:

The term "contract" is normally used in a legal context, meaning
"legally-enforceable binding agreement".  R754(3) therefore points towards
interpreting it with that meaning.  The main question in these CFJs is
whether rule 2109 constitutes an overriding definition of "contract".

Rule 2109 purports to define the term "Agoran Contract", and never
uses the word "contract" alone.  This does not look like a definition
of the single word.  Aside from rule 2136, the subject of these CFJs,
the only other rule that uses the word "contract" alone is rule 1742.
In rule 1742 it is clear that "contract" is used as a synonym for "binding
agreement": that rule regulates such agreements, without attempting to
define words such as "contract" or "agreement".

There is a useful parallel in the terms "decision" and "Agoran decision".
The latter term clearly has a specialised meaning beyond the meaning
of the word "decision".  The word alone is commonly used to refer to an
Agoran decision, but in every case the rule has previously explicitly used
the full term "Agoran decision", and uses the phrase "the decision" to
identify an Agoran decision that is already under discussion.  No rule
uses the term "decision" alone to refer to Agoran decisions as a class.
Some rules use the word "decision" alone with a meaning that is definitely
distinct from Agoran decisions: rules 591, 1365, and 911 use it as a
synonym for "judgement".  So obviously "Agoran decision" and "decision"
have distinct meanings.

I find, therefore, that "contract" is not synonymous with "Agoran
Contract", but by default has its standard English legal meaning.
I therefore judge CFJ 1657 FALSE and CFJ 1658 TRUE.