comex wrote: >At the time of the calling of this CFJ, Rule 1503 was obsolete because of >criminal cases.
You don't make clear what effect this obsoleteness has on your argument. Are you claiming that it was inherently ineffective because of a clash with other (lower power) rules? >non-player parties would necessarily have to review the Rules in order to >intend that the agreement be governed by them. They could have agreed to it without reading the rules. Shockingly, in real life a lot of people sign contracts without reading all the small print. (That's why English contract law has developed the Unfair Contract Terms provisions, which make certain unreasonable contract terms ineffective even when signed.) But it's arguable that everyone has the opportunity to review the rules: they're published on the web. Generally, please expand your argument considerably. At the moment it reads rather like Quazie's arguments in CFJ 1651 which led to it being appealed. -zefram
