On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ========================== Equity Case 1927 ==========================
> >
> > > Judge: Wooble
> >
> > As a hugging judge, Wooble is poorly qualified for this assignment. The
> > alternative is an early rotation (with comex and Goethe failing to get
> > eir turns, though comex is almost a week late on 1921 as it is) and an
> > assignment to Iammars or root. Thoughts?
> >
>
> I flip my hawkishness to hemming-and-hawing. Since this has already
> been assigned to me and I CANNOT assign it a judgment of TRUE, I'm an
> Outie either way.
>
> I'm not sure this has any appreciable effect, though, since I was
> poorly qualified at the time of the assignment.
>
> In either case, I'm going to need to think about about this case; it
> seems a bit odd to need to bring a second equity case when the results
> of the first were completely ignored.
Ordinarily, an obvious solution would be to strength the contract to
allow acting-on-behalf for the ignored obligations but that just won't
work for suggestions and it's hard to imagine that not effecting an
R101 violation here. And if BobTHJ really wants to force comex to
carry out eir obligations, I'm someone surprised that e did not bring
a criminal case (alleging violation of some combination of the
contract ("SHALL act in accordance") and equity case ("is in effect a
binding agreement") rules). Allowing such enforcement was one of my
intentions when I wrote that equation.
Since no one seems to care, you could do some radical judging and have
your equation mandate agreement to dissolve the Vote Market agreement.
-woggle
