On Jan 24, 2008 9:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this still leaves small contracts in a bad state under the rules, > given that amending, terminating and changing the parties (except by adding > new parties (?(*))) to contracts with <= 1 parties basically can't happen, > except through pledge's without-objection mechanism.
That's really a separate issue. To fix it, I think we should just replace "by agreement between all parties" with something more number-neutral, such as "by obtaining the consent of all parties". > ((*) Precedenct appears to be that joining new contracts is unregulated except > when the contract makes a prohibition against it. If by unregulated you mean "any person can join with unanimous agreement between emself and the existing parties", then I agree, but your proposal seems to enshrine a different interpretation. I haven't specifically noticed any contracts using an implicit "join by announcement" mechanism, but if there are, I would assert they don't work that way. > But I don't know if it's > that clear what a mechanism for adding a party has to look like to fall under > the forming-an-agreement interpretation (fine for 0 and 1 party contracts) > and what it has to look like to fall under the "changing the set of parties" > (requires agreement, which can be manifested in the contract).) I don't see the problem. IMO, it should ultimately be left up to the contract, not to Agora, to decide whether a change to it is valid or not. > [Prevent annoyances like "This contract CAN be amended by announcement > if Goldbach's Conjecture is true."] Why? It's their contract. Let them screw it up in weird ways if they want to. -root
