==============================  CFJ 1923  ==============================

    pikhq has a bean.

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

Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       04 Apr 2008 03:27:13 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     06 Apr 2008 22:18:20 GMT
Assigned to root:                       16 Apr 2008 01:04:57 GMT
Zefram recused:                         16 Apr 2008 01:04:57 GMT
Judged FALSE by root:                   22 Apr 2008 05:24:17 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The public contracts Universe 1 and Universe A were created
simultaneously.  Each of them defines beans as a class of
assets.  The first case is intended to test Rule 2166's
"existing solely" clause; the second (trivially FALSE if the
first case is FALSE) is intended to test which of the
contradictory restricted-ownership clauses is effective.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Evidence, part 1 of 3:  Excerpt from a message that I sent
approximately 1.5 hours before I initiated these cases.

> > I agree to this:
> >
> >   1) This public contract is named Universe 1.
> >   2) Beans are a class of assets.
> >   3) The recordkeepor of beans is Murphy.
> >   4) Beans are restricted to the class of players whose nickname
> >        is Murphy or pikhq.
> >
> > and this:
> >
> >   A) This public contract is named Universe A.
> >   B) Beans are a class of assets.
> >   C) The recordkeepor of beans is Murphy.
> >   D) Beans are restricted to the class of players whose nickname
> >        is Murphy or comex.
> >
> > The AFO agrees to both of these.

Evidence, part 2 of 3:  Excerpt from earlier in the same message
in which I initiated these cases.

> > I create 2 beans in my possession.
> > I transfer 1 bean to pikhq.

Evidence, part 3 of 3:  Rule 2166/4 (Assets).

      An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or
      contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
      because its backing document defines its existence.

      Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
      lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank.  If an asset's backing
      document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then
      that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity
      outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity
      outside that class.


      The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as
      such by its backing document.  That entity's report includes a
      list of all instances of that class and their owners.  This
      portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying.

      An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be
      created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to
      modification by its backing document.  To "gain" an asset is to
      have it created in one's possession; to "award" an asset to an
      entity is to create it in that entity's possession.

      An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
      announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be
      destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to
      modification by its backing document.  To "lose" an asset is to
      have it destroyed from one's possession; to "revoke" an asset
      from an entity is to destroy it from that entity's possession.

      An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another
      entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
      document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
      document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.

      A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
      document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
      fungible.

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

Judge root's Arguments:

It seems to me that since the "Universe 1" and "Universe A" contracts
do not refer to one another, they define two distinct classes of
assets that both happen to be called "beans".  Note that this does not
conflict with Rule 1586, since neither class of assets is defined by
the rules.

Murphy did not clearly indicate whether e was attempting to create
Universe 1 beans or Universe A beans, so I find the attempt failed
altogether, and CFJs 1922 and 1923 are both FALSE.

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