On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:29 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't see how this makes any difference whatsoever. A person >> entering into the agreement in this manner would either have to agree >> to the Right Hand, forgoing eir R101(v) right to not be considered >> bound by it, or else e would be agreeing to everything in the Left >> Hand *except* clause 0, meaning that e has really not agreed to be >> bound by the Left Hand at all. This again leads back to the >> conclusion that the two are separate components of a single agreement. > > At Place X, if I buy a chocolate bar I must buy an ice cream cone, and > if I buy an ice cream cone I must buy a chocolate bar. Therefore, the > chocolate bar and the ice cream cone together are one item.
They're two separate items physically, but in terms of purchases, they are indeed a single item. I'm not disputing that the Left Hand and Right Hand are based on physically separate bodies of text. I'm suggesting that at the abstract level that we actually care about, they are an aggregate and should be considered a single contract. -root
