D. Margaux wrote:
On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today."
This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
Rule 1742 (Contracts) doesn't require agreeing to a contract to be
public, just intent that it be binding and rules-governed. Gaelan stated
"choice of forum is intentional" but gave no other indication that e was
merely setting up a hypothetical case for discussion, but instead
appeared to be attempting to set up an actual case so that its
effectiveness could be tested via CFJ, with a small enough amount on the
line (a single one-coin transfer) that e would not suffer significant
economic disadvantage if it was ruled effective. Also, to the best of my
knowledge, there was nothing unusual or non-obviously ineffective about
twg's response in a-b.