==============================  CFJ 2026  ==============================

    The Left Hand is a public contract.

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

Caller:                                 root
Barred:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 2026a
Decision:                               REMAND


Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by root:                         22 Jun 2008 00:56:56 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     22 Jun 2008 15:25:18 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wooble:                 22 Jun 2008 17:51:24 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     22 Jun 2008 18:57:16 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        22 Jun 2008 19:00:34 GMT
Appealed by Zefram:                     22 Jun 2008 22:20:33 GMT
Appeal 2026a:                           23 Jun 2008 00:39:02 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     24 Jun 2008 23:45:25 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     24 Jun 2008 23:45:25 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble:                  01 Jul 2008 20:14:01 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The Left Hand agreement includes this text:

0. Each party to this agreement is also a party to the Right Hand
agreement, and vice versa.

By this clause, being bound by one agreement automatically binds one
to the other, and ceasing to be bound by one must necessarily release
one from the other.  I argue that the implication of this is that the
two are not separate agreements, but are in fact two parts of the same
agreement.  Since the text of the whole has never been published, the
agreement cannot therefore be considered public.

To put it another way, what the Left Hand does operationally is to
bind its parties to an additional set of restrictions that are not
explicitly spelled out in the "text" of the contract, but rather are
included by reference.  However, these restrictions still follow from
agreeing to the contract, and so they must be considered to be part of
it, and therefore part of its text.  It follows then that what has
been published as the text of the contract is not its full text, but
rather a subset.

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

Judge Wooble's Arguments:

The crux of the issue in this case is what constitutes an "agreement"
at the primordial level which can, by Rule 1742, be recognized by
Agora as a contract.

It is clearly the intention of the parties to The Left Hand and The
Right Hand that the two agreements be considered separate Agoran
Contracts.  However, the fact that a single act of agreement to one of
these supposedly separate agreements binds a person to both of them
shows that, at the primordial level of agreement, what a party to The
Left Hand is agreeing to is the sum total of The Left Hand and The
Right Hand, making them essentially a single agreement and thus a
single Contract.

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

Appellant Murphy's Arguments:

I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement.  Clause 0 of the
Left Hand agreement (and its Right Hand counterpart) could be removed
without changing anything else about either contract.  Furthermore, by
H. Judge Wooble's logic, an equation arguably becomes part of the
original contract (if it still exists).

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

Appellant omd's Arguments:

I support Murphy's attempt to appeal this.  Although I agree with the
judge's arguments with respect to contracts which attempt to bind
would-be parties to other contracts, it does not seem to me like the
Left Hand is trying to bind anyone who agrees to it to the Right Hand.
 Instead, the clause:

> 0. Each party to this agreement is also a party to the Right Hand
> agreement, and vice versa.

seems to me just a statement of fact.  It happens that this fact would
become false if anyone "guesses the nature of the Right Hand's
restrictions..." and becomes a party to the Left Hand while not being
a party to the Right Hand, not unlike the "The contestmaster shall be
root.".

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

Gratuitous Evidence by Wooble:

I request that I be provided a copy of The Right Hand agreement by one
if its parties, so that I may following the instructions from the
panel in 2026a.

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

Judge Wooble's Arguments:

As the appeals panel accepted the bulk of the arguments from my
previous ruling, I'm here examining only the issue of R101(v).

Persons who have not had a reasonable chance to review the Right Hand
agreement before joining the Left Hand do have a right to consider
themselves not bound by the Right Hand.  Since neither contract
specifies that before joining the two contracts the person joining
shall be shown the full text of the Right Hand, and since the Right
Hand contract does contain provisions beyond the ones a person is
required to guess before becoming a party to the Left Hand, the two
cannot be taken to be a single primordial agreement.

It follows from this that were someone to guess the Right Hand content
referred to in the Left Hand and to become a Partner of the Left Hand
by announcement, eir act of joining would most likely fail to bind em
to the Right Hand, or at the very least give em the right, clause 7 of
the Left Hand notwithstanding, to cease to be bound by the Right Hand
(and, by clause 0, the Left Hand as well) by announcement.  However,
this is probably an issue best left to the Equity courts in case this
scenario arises.

The Left Hand and the Right Hand are separate contracts.  I judge TRUE.

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