On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. If the term "agree" is used. > Rule 1742/14 states "Any agreement made by one or more persons with > the intention that it be binding on them and governed by the rules is > a contract (unless it would automatically terminate as a contract)". > Therefore if two people agree to something in a public forum, then it > counts as a contract. > But how do we know that they meant for the contract to be binding on > them? By the fact that they posted it to a public forum. Rule 2149/8 > (Truthfulness) requires people to tell the truth in public forums. > Obviously, it is hard to tell the truth about the future, but if > someone says that e agrees to X, then in order for that statement to > be the truth, e has to follow X, therefore making X binding.
In the case of a private agreement, how do we know that they *didn't* mean for the contract to be binding on them? The rule "PF implies contract" seems reasonable to me, but you haven't made any actual argument for the inverse rule "not PF implies not contract". > 3. If they don't state that, but use some kind of dense legalese. > If a person doesn't agree to something, then Rule 2149/8 can't apply. > Someone posting legalese might have other reasons for doing so. > (Outside consulting on a contract or suggestions to how to change a > proposal, with either one posted to the wrong forum.) This distinction seems arbitrary to me. R2149/8 applies to anything intentionally posted to a public forum, whether it uses the word "agree" or not. The possibility of mis-posts is a dead-end. After all, somebody could just as easily accidentally post the word "agree" to the wrong forum. -root
