==============================  CFJ 2116  ==============================

    The contract quoted above currently has Ivan Hope CXXVII as a party.


Caller:                                 Wooble

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED



Called by Wooble:                       28 Jul 2008 19:59:35 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        02 Aug 2008 07:02:53 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by omd:             10 Aug 2008 01:09:37 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Sgeo <sgeoster@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree to the following contract:
> {
> This is a public contract.
> Only myself and ais523 may join this contract.
> As soon as ais523 joins this contract, e may, and shall, as soon as
> possible, one time only, by announcement act on Sgeo's behalf to cause
> Sgeo to give em 30VP. 2 weeks after ais523 joins this contract, Sgeo
> may, one time only, by announcement, act on ais523's behalf to cause
> ais523 to give Sgeo 30VP.
> After ais523 receives 30VP from Sgeo by acting on Sgeo's behalf, Ivan
> Hope CXXVII can and may, by announcement, one time only, act on Sgeo's
> behalf to cause Sgeo to give Ivan Hope CXXVII 50VP, if and only if
> doing so counts as fulfilling Sgeo's obligations towards Ivan Hope
> }


Caller's Arguments:

1. The contract itself purports to regulate becoming a party to it;
however, at the time Ivan Hope CXXVII attempted to become a party it
wasn't yet a contract, so arguably Rule 2198 doesn't apply to it as it
only applies to contracts.
2. Sgeo attempted to cease to agree to the contract before Ivan Hope
CXXVII's joining was announced in the Public Forum.  However, if Ivan
Hope CXXVII could become a party to the contract, it's ambiguous when
eir joining became effective; before e joined the agreement was not a
public contract and thus possibly not affected by Rule 2178's timing
3. In light of the above ambiguities, Ivan Hope CXXVII's attempted
contract change may have had no effect due to Rule 2197.


Judge omd's Arguments:

Rule 2178 (Public Contracts) says:
      If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear
      indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then
      it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a

Therefore, the not-yet-a-contract would not yet have been identified
as public when Ivan Hope CXXVII agreed to it (but only immediately
thereafter, when it allegedly became a contract).  Besides, the
membership of the alleged contract did not change: it was {Sgeo, Ivan
Hope CXXVII} from the beginning, so the last paragraph of Rule 2178
does not apply.

Rule 1742 (Contracts) 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).

      A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to
      it falls below the number of parties the rules require for the
      contract.  If other rules do not specify such a number for a
      contract, then a contract requires at least two parties.
I think there is a loophole here, actually; rather than never creating
a contract, Sgeo's purported agreement successfully created a
non-pledge contract with two parties, which was immediately
terminated.  However, this is not relevant to the case: if Ivan Hope
CXXVII agreed to something with Sgeo, that forms a completely
different contract.

Clearly, Sgeo did not literally mean that e was agreeing to a
contract.  What is implied by the announcement is that Sgeo was
announcing eir agreement to form a contract with the specified text,
and with the implied set of parties {Sgeo, ais523}.

There is no evidence that Sgeo intended to form the contract with Ivan
Hope CXXVII, although e might have said so explicitly to test whether
forming a contract with someone counts as their joining it.  It is
also unclear whether Sgeo intended IRC to be a suitable mechanism for
agreeing to the contract (instead, perhaps e intended that eir
agreement only counted towards ais523 consenting in the Public Forum,
in line with the spirit of public contracts).  So this "agreement"
between Sgeo and Ivan Hope CXXVII was invalid and never constituted a
contract, because Sgeo's announcement purporting to agree to a
contract was not sufficient to create it as such-- although if it had,
its formation with the appropriate set of parties would have been
blocked neither by the text of the contract nor by the failure of the
"change" in membership to be announced to a Public Forum.

I judge UNDETERMINED, because the statement ("The contract quoted
above currently has Ivan Hope CXXVII as a party.") is nonsensical if
the text quoted above is not part of a contract.