CFJ 3620:

> I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
> -------
> "This sentence is false."
> If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
> false, I owe no shinies to Agora.
> While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam but I
> do not owe any shinies to any person.
> I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora
> and CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing.
> -------

> I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
> CuddleBeam at least one shiny.

Rule 2523 provides that obligations in contracts to refrain from actions
that are subject to inextricable conditionals are, effectively,
ineffective. It says nothing, however, about positive obligations to act.
So the mere attempt to use an indeterminate statement to impose the
obligation is not barred.

There are some questions about exactly how the text of the contract should
be interpreted, since it says "I owe 1 shinies to Agora" which is a
sentence written as if it's always speaking. However, unlike with rules, we
are directed by Rule 2525 to apply, among other things, the intent of the
parties. In this case, I think it is correct to resolve the ambiguity about
a possibly unfulfillable obligation in favour of the interpretation of the
parties.

Note that there is no way for a contract to automatically transfer shinies.
If it were possible, then the effect of the contract would be to effect a
transfer immediately, meaning that the obligation (if it exists) is
discharged.

Consequently, I judge this case PARADOXICAL. It is not resolvable whether
or not there is an obligation, and the rules provide no resolution for the
paradox.

I will go a little bit obiter, however, to observe that this CFJ is not
about the legality or possibility of a game action, and thereby fails to
meet the requirements for a win by paradox.

CFJ 3621:

> I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
> -------
> "This sentence is false."
> If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
false,
> I owe no shinies to Agora.
> While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to Nichdel but I do
> not owe any shinies to any person.
> I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora
and
> Nichdel what I owe them within a week of owing.
> -------

> I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
> Nichdel at least one shiny.

This one is IRRELEVANT; it's trivially determined by the previous case.

Proposal: Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix (AI=2.4)
{{{
Amend Rule 2523 "Contracts as Agreements" by replacing "If whether an
action is permitted or forbidden by a contract" with "If whether an action
is permitted, forbidden, required, or made optional by a contract".
}}}

I intend, without objection, to pend this proposal.

-Alexis

Reply via email to