On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It's a question of scope of the rules to apply to real world. You say a CFJ
on
pineappleness should be FALSE ("Real world evidence is overwhelming that
pineapples don't send email,
using the common language clause of definitions.") and I say it should
DISMISSED ("Agoran law doesn't have any procedures, rules, or methods of
gathering evidence on who is or isn't a pineapple, so the law can't interfere
with a person's
right/privilege to deem emself a pineapple, if there's a
private contract that hinges on determining pineappleness,
the contract better have a specific way of pinapple
determination or I'll dismiss it as a private matter allowable by R101").
Final thought for this morning: I can think of one, very limited
situation (which you would probably disagree with) where I would
judge TRUE, X is a pineapple). It would be "The contract says
that pineapples must vote like X, but doesn't define how to
become a pineapple. Since the real-world pineapples can't vote,
the real-world definition of pineapple is not applicable to
the contract. We therefore must infer that the contract allows
for parties of the contract to become defined by pineappleness,
while not specifying how. And in such a situation, if someone
deems themselves a pineapple for the purposes
of the contract, both the "do what you wilt" and "abilities and
consent to enter into agreements" clauses of R101 requires
Agoran Law to deem that the deeming is valid.
Whew!
-Goethe
