==============================  CFJ 1835  ==============================

    In this message, comex submitted a CFJ on the statement "Who am I?"

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

Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by omd:                          18 Dec 2007 20:38:42 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     19 Dec 2007 22:04:27 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram:                 20 Dec 2007 23:36:45 GMT

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

Judge Zefram's Arguments:

At the time that that CFJ might have been submitted, the contractual
arrangement between the AFO and comex was complicated.  The entire
contract between them read

   1. This is a contract governed by the rules of Agora.  Its parties
      are the AFO and comex.  Its set of parties CANNOT be changed.

   2. The AFO can by announcement dissolve or amend the contract.

   3. By joining this contract, comex authorizes the AFO to act in any
      way on eir behalf by announcement.  E agrees that this
      authorization is not impaired by the amendment of the contract,
      or eir subsequent refusal thereof.

comex had by this time also made a statement

      I explicitly REFUSE to allow and DO NOT AUTHORIZE the AFO to act
      on my behalf.

These two aspects are in conflict: by the contract comex explicitly
authorises the AFO to act on eir behalf, but by eir later statement
e purports to repudiate such authorisation.  Due to the conflict, the
statement might conceivably be interpreted as an attempt to dissolve
the contract.  However, the contract does not allow comex to dissolve it
unilaterally, so such an attempt would fail.  (Per rule 1742 a contract
dissolves by the agreement of all parties, which per CFJ 1770 may be
manifested by the contract in question.)

I find that comex's unilateral statement cannot override the contractual
provision to which e was bound.  The contract was therefore in effect
despite the repudiating statement.  The AFO was at the time authorised
to act on comex's behalf in any way.

However, "Who am I?" is a question, not a statement.  There is no way
to construct a valid CFJ on such a question, so comex (via the AFO (via
comex))'s attempted action did not result in the initiation of a CFJ
of any kind.  Furthermore, the statement of CFJ 1835, in referring to
"the statement "Who am I?"", is internally contradictory.  CFJ 1835 is
therefore FALSE.

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