On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
A key point in this conversation is the following Rights limitation in
the original Rule, which is still in the current:
ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is
not regulated.
The process of agreeing that an agreement was binding agora was to
have it come under Regulation, so that was a mechanism for waiving it.
But I don't know that there's a precedent to that effect. It's
*possible* that this has some interesting effects; that for example
the weakness of the current Agreement rule means "agreements" don't
effectively create regulation (as said agreements can't be enforced),
but that promises *do* create regulation.
The form of R101 was written at the same time the equity courts were
created, so it would have been possible to say "if you agreed to X,
but now think it violates your rights, you could apply for relief
to equity courts".
But really, not tested.
-G.
