==============================  CFJ 1878  ==============================

    It is possible to, by announcement, cease to be a party to a
    contract which has exactly 1 party and which is both a location and
    a pledge when the contract explicitly permits this.


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:

With locations, there is no complicating issue change being allowed "without
Objection". However, the text automatically causing a player to "[leave] any
location e is already in" does not apply when the player is just trying to
leave the  location by announcement (without entering a new location), so
only the R2191 mechanism of ceasing to be a party would seem to apply. But,
unlike the pledge case, the spirit of the location rule seems to be to allow
players to leave locations freely when the location permits it.


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.

As the initiator notes, this interpretation is useful for pledges, not
so much for locations.  However, the rules do not define any
additional circumstances under which to escape from locations by
announcement, so I am forced to find CFJs 1877 and 1878 FALSE as well.