On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Maybe you care about a different abstract level than those who agree >> to the Hands; I expect that most of their parties care that they be >> treated as separate contracts. > > What matters is how the rules view it, not the parties.
It seems we're still arguing about how the rules view it; meanwhile, since this is an agreement among the parties, made by the parties to govern the parties' behavior, we ought to respect the parties' opinions. On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rather, I claim the R1742 definition of a contract is best described > as a set of binding obligations and a set of parties. It does not > matter whether, at the physical level, some subset of the obligations > are included explicitly or by reference; it's the same set either way. > In order to successfully bring another party into the contract, that > party must agree to be bound by the full set of obligations, not an > arbitrary subset. The Hands have generally been treated as separate contracts, and now, because they have clauses excluding people from each if they're not a party to the other, you say that each Hand is an "arbitrary subset"? You say that to bring a party into "the contract", the party must agree to be bound by "the full set"; this is consistent the Hands being separate agreements, as people become parties to each contract by agreeing to be bound by each one in its entirety. > Otherwise, what's to stop me from, e.g., declaring that I agree to the > vote market, but not to the clause that I have to follow through on my > sell tickets, because I just find that part inconvenient? Nothing, but then you'd be agreeing to something other than the Vote Market with entirely different things called VP and entirely different parties. Again, this argument does not demonstrate that the Hands being separate agreements is inconsistent with the rules; you're just asserting that "agreements are ineffective unless they're both done at the same time; therefore, they're really just one agreement", if I'm not mistaken. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
