==========================  Equity Case 2067  ==========================

    Sgeo could stash all the currency I didn't give him, then claim he
    only has to give back what he has after stashing. This is clearly a
    great injustice.

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

Caller:                                 Machiavelli
Barred:                                 Sgeo

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              

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

History:

Called by Machiavelli:                  11 Jul 2008 03:02:55 GMT
Parties informed:                       12 Jul 2008 15:33:28 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  19 Jul 2008 15:33:28 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     20 Jul 2008 07:16:14 GMT
Judged  by Wooble:                      20 Jul 2008 11:53:57 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Sgeo <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree to the following pledge
> {
> I pledge to, upon a player giving me eir entire supply of a currency,
> give said player all of my supply of that currency, including what
> that player gave me, as soon as possible.
> }

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:

All the relevant arguments I've already made, complete with quotes and
signatures:

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Sgeo <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree to the following pledge
> {
> I pledge to, upon a player giving me eir entire supply of a currency,
> give said player all of my supply of that currency, including what
> that player gave me, as soon as possible.
> }

Despite this being NTTPF, the rule says, "Contracts are binding
agreements governed by the rules.  Any agreement made by one or more
persons with the intention that it be binding on them and governed by
the rules is a contract (unless it would automatically terminate as a
contract)." Saying that he agrees is obvious evidence that he agrees.

Therefore, I give Sgeo all my VP.

--Ivan Hope CXXVII

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Sgeo <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree to the following pledge
> {
> I pledge to, upon a player giving me eir entire supply of a currency,
> give said player all of my supply of that currency, including what
> that player gave me, as soon as possible.
> }

I call an equity case.

Pledge: the above.
Parties: Sgeo and me.
State of affairs: Sgeo could stash all the currency I didn't give him,
then claim he only has to give back what he has after stashing. This
is clearly a great injustice.

--Ivan Hope CXXVII

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Sgeo <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote:
> I call a CFJ on the following statement: "Sgeo is obligated to give
> Ivan Hope CXXVII an amount of VP"
>
> Argument against:
> The relevent pledge was clearly not intended to be binding, as it was
> sent to the discussion list, and marked as a scam, shortly after I
> made messages testing a trick to make messages to the discussion list
> look like messages to the business list.

On the contrary: since you admit it was a scam, that means you were
intending for others to interpret it as an agreement. Intending for
others to interpret something as an agreement is exactly how you
"officially" agree to something in Agora.

--Ivan Hope CXXVII

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:22 AM, ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> I think it can be argued that, although it's certainly possible to make
> a contract in a-d (I've made an Agoran contract over IRC before, for
> instance), the context of that particular pledge seems to show that it
> might not necessarily be true. When Sgeo said that e agreed, it seemed
> likely that e was lying; there is no rule against lying in a-d,
> therefore it does not seem to me necessarily true that e was making the
> offer in the first place. (I would consider it to be a valid contract if
> not for the context it was in.)

When you say that you agree to something in a public forum, it's not
considered an agreement because lying in the public forum is illegal;
it's considered an agreement because saying that you agree is how you
create a binding agreement. Sgeo said he agreed; since this is how you
create a binding agreement, it's now a binding agreement.

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:02 PM, ihope <ihope127@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I call an equity case.
>>
>> Pledge: the above.
>> Parties: Sgeo and me.
>> State of affairs: Sgeo could stash all the currency I didn't give him,
>> then claim he only has to give back what he has after stashing. This
>> is clearly a great injustice.
>
> Gratuitous argument: if that pledge is a contract, the state of
> affairs in question is *exactly* what was envisioned by the contract
> by all of its parties.

The contract says "all of [Sgeo's] supply of that currency". This is
circumvented if Sgeo artificially reduces his possessions without
actually reducing what's available to him.

Then again, the wording "all of my supply" does kind of imply that
Sgeo must return not only all the VP in his possession but also all
the VP he has easy access to. Though I guess that could still be
circumvented by putting it in a partnership that wouldn't release it
for two weeks or something.

--Ivan Hope CXXVII

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

Judge Wooble's Arguments:

Rule 2169 implies that inequity in a contract is limited to events
proceeding as not envisioned by the contract.  At the time this CFJ
was filed, it seems that no events had occurred that were not
envisioned by the contract, as the only party to the contract
envisioned that someone would transfer all of eir currency of a
certain type, and e even clearly and fairly labeled the contract as a
scam attempt.  I believe the fact that a non-party to the contract was
misled by the contract is irrelevant to equity, and thus it would be
inappropriate for me to assign any judgment but the null agreement.
Thus, I judge: "".

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