On Saturday 02 February 2008 21:53:12 comex wrote: > On Feb 2, 2008 9:44 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be good to know what exactly makes an agreement binding, > > anyways... Since the contract in question didn't seem to ever impose any > > obligations on comex, if imposing obligations is necessary for a contract > > to be binding on someone, then the contract in question may have not been > > made "intention that it be binding upon" both the AFO and comex. > > But in that case, I wouldn't have been able to form, say, the contract > referenced in CFJ 1833 which, similarly, only had a clause allowing X > to act on behalf of Y.
It also had clauses governing how it could be amended and have its set of parties changed, which could be argued to create obligations to agree or not agree to certain changes to the parties and text of the contract. But, a more reasonable interpretation (and what I was expecting most people to conclude) is that the obligations an agreement purports to impose or not impose are not a good basis for determining if a agreement is binding. -woggle
