==============================  CFJ 2560  ==============================

    I can initiate an equity case regarding Test Subject 2.


Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by scshunt:                      02 Jun 2009 14:26:56 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     06 Jun 2009 06:39:17 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523:                 09 Jun 2009 09:19:38 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

If it's Equitable, I can. If it's not, I cannot.


Caller's Evidence:

I agree to the following:

{ This is a pledge named Test Subject 2. Its Disclosure is Public.

coppro can terminate this pledge by announcement.

This contract's Sentiment is Equitable. This contract's Sentiment is


Judge ais523's Arguments:

CFJ 2560 is a test of a conflict between R2162 and R2198. Test Subject 2
purported to be both Equitable and Legalistic. R2198 itself has no
problem with this; the paragraph I quoted above therefore attempts to
platonically hold the switch at simultaneously-equitable-and-legalistic.

R2162 has a problem with this, by specifying that at any given time, a
switch only has one value. It specifies a method for remedying a
situation in which a switch 'violates' (in the platonic CAN sense, not
the legal SHALL sense) the rule by having no value; unfortunately, it
does not specify a method for remedying a situation in which a switch is
created with two values at once. However, there is a straightforward
conflict here: R2162 and R2198 clearly contradict each other on this
point, they both have power 2, and so by R1030, R2162 is correct, and
the switch (if it exists; see later) platonically has exactly one value.
(Incidentally, I consider any need to appeal to R1030 in a judgement
that isn't specifically to do with a precedence-based question a bug in
the ruleset; any ideas as to the best way to fix this? I think
pragmatising R2198 may be the way to go.)

So the final question is, if the switch has exactly one value, which
value does it have? At this point, I think I have clearly established
that the value of the switch is ambiguous; flipping to default might be
a common-sense solution to this, but R2162 specifically only flips a
switch to default if it has no possible value, and this switch would
have two. However, R2198 specifies what to do with an ambiguous attempt
to create a contract; the contract doesn't exist at all:
      The rest of this rule notwithstanding, if the nature and/or
      permissibility of a Contract Changes is ambiguous, then it has
      no effect.
[I believe the typo there is irrelevant due to R754; H. Janitor Quazie,
cleaning it may be a good idea...]
So Test Subject 2 was not a contract; the attempt to agree to it failed
due to ambiguity (in the value of its instance of the Sentiment switch).
And not being a contract, coppro couldn't initiate an equity case
regarding it. Therefore, I judge CFJ 2560 FALSE.