==============================  CFJ 2046  ==============================

    ehrid devolves its obligations onto at least two people.

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

Caller:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by ehird:                        25 Jun 2008 21:04:12 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         26 Jun 2008 03:27:19 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      27 Jun 2008 17:46:28 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

It could be that it can devolve obligations without the person it
devolves to being able to
uphold these obligations. Then it's trivially TRUE, and ehrid is still a
player.

If not, then Ivan Hope can still uphold them by acting through me.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ:

The ehrid contract does not permit Ivan Hope to take any actions to
uphold its obligations, therefore it does not devolve those
responsibilities onto two or more persons. Although Ivan Hope is
permitted to act on ehirds behalf, this is not due to the ehrid
contract but instead due to a separate pledge which has no relation to
the original contract.

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

Gratuitous Evidence by G.:

H. Notary, can you provide me with the ehrid contract and membership as
it stood at the time of this CFJ (or confirm that the text and membership
on the website you've provided was accurate to that time)?  -Goethe

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

Gratuitous Evidence by G.:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> H. Notary, can you provide me with the ehrid contract and membership as
>> it stood at the time of this CFJ (or confirm that the text and membership
>> on the website you've provided was accurate to that time)?  -Goethe
>>
>
> http://eso-std.org/~ais523/notary-report.html#teh-cltohed-mna-ni-teh-drak-wo
h-wtaches-adn-nevre-sasy-a-wrod-execpt-wehn-psoessed-yb-dmeons-mcuhly-precocup
ied
>
> except:
>
> ehird (me) is now notehird
> it's now called ehrid
> the manroster is just notehird

H. Notary, as "ehrid" is/was (apparently) a public contract, can you confirm
the text and membership in the PF?  -Goethe

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

Gratuitous Evidence by ais523:

The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
following text:

{{{
There is a list of players called the Manroster. The Manroster is
initially ehird and ihope. Any player in the Manroster can perform
actions on behalf of this contract. Any player in the Manroster can
change the Manroster. All parties to this contract SHALL act to ensure
it fulfills any obligations it may incur. This is a public contract.
}}}

Its membership was {ehird, Ivan Hope CXXVII}. Note that the Manroster
was [ehird] at the time of the contract (however, the contract's text
itself did not change).

There was also an attempt to rename the contract to ehrid; I don't know
if it was successful. If it wasn't the contract's name is Teh Cltohed
Mna Ni Teh Drak Woh Wtaches Adn Nevre Sasy A Wrod Execpt Wehn Psoessed
Yb Dmeons Mcuhly Precocupied.

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

Gratuitous Evidence by ais523:

comex wrote:
> Actually, if I deregistered ehird before e attempted to change the
> Manroster, ehird was no longer a player in the Manroster, so e was not
> able to change it.
Ah, good catch. In that case, I may have been wrong about the current
contents of the Manroster, but luckily I don't think it's the Notary's
job to track that.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

I shall refer to the contract ehrid as Teh Cltohed Mna for my own
convenience.  Note that in context of this decision and announcements in
the same message, previous CFJs have held that this should be sufficiently
clear to identify the contract even if the "official" name isn't used
(CFJ 1361).

At the time of this CFJ, Teh Cltohed Mna was a public contract (Notary's
evidence).

At a time when the membership list (the "Manroster", see Judge's Evidence)
was unambigously ehird and ihope, ehird ceased to be a player.  The Teh
Cltohed Mna states that the Manroster is a list of players, and is
*initially* ehird and ihope.  There is a strong implication then, by the
definitions of the contract, that the Manroster can change, and that
ceasing to be a player is to cease to be a class of entity that can be on
the Manroster, and is therefore a contract-specified method for falling
off the Manroster.  This court finds that this implication in the
definition of the Manroster is sufficient to satisfy R2198p1, so that
ceasing to be a player is a contract-specified mechanism for ceasing to be
a member of the contract.

However, changes to a public contract do not take effect until being
published (R2178).  The publication of ehird's deregistration, while it
had knock-on effects, was not a sufficient and direct publication of
a public contract change - publishing a cause does not imply that you
have published every effect.  So the time of the CFJ, this contract change
had not been published for the purposes of R2178, so had not taken effect,
so at the time of the CFJ this contract continued to devolve
responsibilities to both ehird and ihope.

Therefore, This Court finds TRUE.

However, I also note that R2178 does not state that the publication must be
made by those making the change; for example, in general, it is sufficient
for R2178 that the contract-change according to its mechanisms to happen
"behind closed doors" but take effect upon the notary (or anyone else)
clearly publishing the change.

So, I hereby publish that ehird has fallen of the Manroster, so (if someone
hasn't beaten me to it and published it as I was writing this) as of the
instant of publishing this CFJ, the result (not for the CFJ decision, but
from this time onwards) becomes FALSE.

If Teh Cltohed Mna is a player, I believe by this judgement and
announcement that it is no longer a partnership.  Therefore, if Teh Clothed
Mna is a player, I deregister it as (I believe I am) permitted by R869.

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

Judge G.'s Evidence:

Text of Teh Clthohed Mna (provided by the Notary)

    There is a list of players called the Manroster. The Manroster is
    initially ehird and ihope. Any player in the Manroster can perform
    actions on behalf of this contract. Any player in the Manroster can
    change the Manroster. All parties to this contract SHALL act to ensure
    it fulfills any obligations it may incur. This is a public contract.

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