On Mon, 12 May 2008, ihope wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> This is also true. The contract itself defines what a member of the >> > religion is -- but does >> > not precisely equate it with being party to the contract, >> >> The preamble says "This religion is a private contract...I am the only >> member of this religion." Set R = Set C -> Members of R = Members of C. > > A party to a contract is not the same as a member of a contract. All > members are parties, but not all parties are members.
When no definition or distinction is explicitly made in the text, it is most reasonable to assume that member=party. Otherwise we'd have to go back through all past contracts to see which terms were used, which doesn't fit the notion of being flexible with reasonbly synonymous terms in the absence of explicit definition or differentiation. > Anyway, I quoted a piece of text that looked like a contract and > certainly fit the proper form of a contract, and said I agreed. My > intention was to agree to that piece of text. I think I did. Well, you agreed to a term that said you couldn't agree because the maker was the only possible member. You could say that was an instantly self-nullifying agreement (CFJ TRUE) or a non-agreement as it is impossible (CFJ FALSE). I chose the latter since I don't tend to like "instantaneous self-nullifying" constructs as a principle of law, but either way it means you weren't a member of the contract for any instant so it isn't really worth mooting. -Goethe
