Sean Hunt wrote: > Sorry for the BlackBerry reply; I know it'll look hideous, so no quoted text. > > 2599 has the same judgment as 2598 as R101 says that no contract is > formed without explicit, willful consent. Therefore if inmibis (sp?) > agreed to the contract, e had no way out. > > In the circumstances, it is clear eir consent was willful as e > specifically encouraged ais523 to try binding emself to a contract in > ##nomic. Furthermore, the text was very explicit. However, we must > realize that the consent required by R101 does not mean the person has > to say explicitly that e consents - rather, e performs some action > explicitly to indicate eir consent (consent may be implicit, but only > if the implication is caused explicitly.) Therefore, the fact that the > script provided an explicit text is immaterial. > > It is unclear if inmibis ever truly intended to be bound, thus e > lacked explicit consent. As such, I judge these CFJs to both be FALSE.
This feels wrong somehow. The first two paragraphs appear to be arguing for TRUE, but then the last one contradicts their conclusions without refuting their arguments. In light of the reasoning presented in the second paragraph of this judgement, how do you find inclarity as to whether immibis intended to be bound?
