On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:34 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > I interpreted this as relatively clear consent to allow me to act on > > Murphy's behalf support such an intent, although not as being a > > contract. Note that my intent to protectorise Einos came after Murphy's > > comment quoted above, although before the CFJ was called. > > But it was in fact an agreement between you that imposes obligations on > Murphy. Murphy is legally bound to accept your act-on-behalf-of as > binding to eir action) and CFJ 1921 made it pretty clear that a public > binding statement that a reasonable person would accept as binding should > be construed as a contract. -Goethe
It doesn't claim to be a pledge, and it only has one party (if that). Therefore, it cannot by definition be a contract. -- ais523
