==============================  CFJ 2410  ==============================

    coppro is a party to the Cookie Jar.


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by ais523:                       11 Mar 2009 15:24:16 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         12 Mar 2009 23:10:21 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      18 Mar 2009 15:28:52 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 11:21 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Alex Smith <ais523@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 08:04 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> I agree to these terms.
> >
> > NttPF. (In other words, you sent to a-d, rather than a-b, by mistake;
> > don't worry, everyone does it.)
> >
> > Note that there is judicial precedent that unlike other actions, it's
> > often possible to agree to a contract in a discussion forum. You can't
> > agree to a /public/ contract like that, though (at least not with
> > immediate effect).
> I hereby announce that coppro has become party to the Cookie Jar.


Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:



Judge G.'s Arguments:

To become a member of a public contract, three things have to happen:

1.  The potential member must give consent.  This consent need not be
public.  For the satisfaction of R101(iii), a clear and explicit
witnessed message, or a private message entered into evidence and
undisputed by the potential member, is sufficient.  Messages to the
discussion forum are suitably witnessed[1], by This Court among others,
so in this case there is clear evidence that explicit consent has been

2.  The contract must permit the joining, and the Rules or the contract
must provide a mechanism.  Now, the Cookie Jar does not purport to
regulate joining, so by R2198/4:
      If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to
      it, then any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.
This might, at first, be taken to imply that this is the only mechanism.
However, we have tied, in the past, the forming and joining of contracts
to the simple and natural act of giving consent, publicly and privately.
The above text in R2198 does not forbid the "natural" act, instead we
infer (from R1742) that if they do in a natural manner of communication,
with intent, it is effective.  It is therefore reasonable to infer that:
      "Changes in the text or list of parties of a public contract do
       not become effective until they are published."
means that natural consent become effective when it is published, in
other words, it is reasonable to infer that any person can publish
the information and therefore make the joining "effective".

3.  An announcement must be published detailing the change, after or
when consent is given (R2178/5).  There is no restriction in the Rule;
anyone CAN publish the information.  In this case, the publication
happened prior to this CFJ[3].

Therefore, all conditions have been met.  TRUE.

[1]  If the consent message is private, it is likely that it must be
sent/witnessed/etc. by at least one "current member" of the contract, or
parties who offered the contract.  E.g. if it were possible for me to
enter a private contract that I happen to know exists between comex and
ais523 by sending a private message to Murphy, all sorts of fun messes
would be possible.  It is reasonable to assume that such messes don't
work.  But it's not legislated, not certain, and someone else can test
it; there is sufficient evidence that the discussion forum reasonably
informed all possible interested parties, and if not, the publication
did so, so that's not an issue here.