On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote: > The contract was "Steve Wallace allows pikhq to act on his behalf." Such > contracts have fairly firm precedent in support of them(CFJ 1719), and are by > no means regulated. Since this has been explicitly allowed without rule-based > regulation in the past, then in this case it must now be allowed.
Thank you. I believe that the judge's reasoning in CFJ 1719 was in error. The judge considered some distant informal precedents, but failed to note the very real and specific regulation of power of attorney and Executorship which previously existed (and was required to exist to empower such things), the game custom which it represented, non-permissive CFJs such as 1303, and the current R2160, which is a fine example of Exceptio probat regulam. -Goethe
