I do quite like the simplicity of this. I especially like that contracts now must include at least 2 people, so there's no quick-contract-to-get-around-something allowed. This also makes contracts seem more like real contracts.

On 6/11/2018 10:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Okay, here's a contracts system based on the model proposed by G. I
welcome any clean-up suggestions or other improvements, although I
think I've kept it fairly minimal, with the exception of the
provisions in the assets rule, which will remain problematic until it
sees its own reform.

-Aris
---

Title: Minimalist Contracts v1
Adoption index: 2.5
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada

[This proposal saves allowing contracts to control assets until we decide
to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]

Renact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:

   Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
   make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
   binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
   is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
   by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
   parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
   parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
   parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
   agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
   contract.

   Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
   accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
   by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
   between the contract and the rules.

   A contract may act as a backing document, as permitted by other
   rules. A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party
   to it as allowed in the contract.

[Comments on whether the backing document bit belongs here would be
appreciated.]

[The portion below may be messy, but that's existing assets rule
messiness, which is also my fault and also needs fixing.]

If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": {
   In Rule 2166, change the sentence containing the text "(hereafter
   its backing document)" to read

     "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b)
     authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized
     regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset
     class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must
     be authorized specifically to do so by their parent rule), or (d)
     contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
     because its backing document defines its existence."

   In Rule 2166, append the paragraph

     "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its
      backing document is a contract."

   to the end of the rule.
}

Reply via email to