==============================  CFJ 1876  ==============================

    It is possible to cease to be a party to a pledge which has exactly
    1 party by announcement when the text of pledge explicitly permits


Caller:                                 woggle

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by woggle:                       18 Jan 2008 02:14:40 GMT
Assigned to root:                       18 Jan 2008 10:26:20 GMT
Judged FALSE by root:                   23 Jan 2008 02:33:04 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Modifying the set of parties can be done, according to R1742, "by agreement
between all parties". CFJ 1770 says that the text of a contract can be used
to manifest the  agreement between its parties for the purposes of modifying
or terminating a contract. R2191's mechanism for modifying a contract without
objection  supplements but does not override this. (It does not explicitly
take precedence over R1742 and has the same power and a higher rule number.)

Arguments against:
Obtaining agreement requires that two people be involved, but "all parties"
is just one person in such a case.

Clearly, it would against the intention of the Pledges rule (which allows
the pledge to be changed without Objection) if a single party to a pledge
could cease to be a party to it by agreeing with themselves.


Judge root's Arguments:

The initiator argues that obtaining "agreement between all parties" to
terminate or modify a contract requires at least two parties.  Rule
1742 describes how certain agreements may be formed but does not
define the term, so I turn to dictionary.com.  Agreement is "the act
of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arrangement" or "the mutual
assent of contracting parties to the same terms".  The legal definiton
"an expression of assent by two or more parties to the same object" is
also provided.  "Agree" is defined as "to come to one opinion or mind;
come to an arrangement or understanding; arrive at a settlement",
which does not imply a minimum number of parties.  However, "mutual"
is defined as "of or pertaining to each of two or more; held in
common; shared".  Finally, Human Point Two found in CFJs 1682-1683
that an R1742 binding agreement required at least two persons (prior
to the rule's subsequent amendment to match), based upon that rule's
consistent use of the plural.  That precedent applies in this case as
well.  Thus, I find that the majority of the evidence points to the
phrase "agreement between all parties" requiring at least two parties
to be satisfied.

In the case of pledges, Rule 2191 provides an alternative means for
leaving or terminating the pledge without objection; but an action
without objection is not an action by announcement, so this does not
meet the criteria of the statement.  I find CFJ 1876 to be FALSE.