On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> > wrote: >> There is an additional wrinkle in the Agoran context. Rule 101 says >> that "that no interpretation of Agoran law or binding agreement may >> substantially limit or remove a person's rights as defined by this >> Rule". This phrase could be taken to forbid waivers as a limitation or >> removal of a right. > > FWIW, I disagree with this judgement because it departs from the > history of Rule 101, which separated inalienable rights from waiveable > privileges: > > The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or > privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement > or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or > remove a person's defined rights. A person's defined privileges > are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding > agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any > rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or > privileges. > > In particular, I am fairly certain the clause about "no... binding > agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's rights" was > intended to forbid waivers in exactly that manner. While we no longer > have privileges, I believe the principle should still apply. >
I was going off of the evidence I had, which wasn't much. Can you provide any CFJ precedents? Additionally, I would think that " A person's defined privileges are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to the contrary." would be construed as allowing explicit (but not implicit) waivers. -scshunt
