On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 5:08 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > The sentence that you're quoting doesn't "allow" Agora to do
> > anything, it just ensures that those conditions always return true if
> > Agora is the Auctioneer.
>
> This doesn't make sense at all to me.  Agora is the Auctioneer, and if
> it's this statement that makes it "return TRUE" that Agora CAN transfer
> something, then it's what makes it TRUE that Agora CAN transfer
> something.  It's a tautology.  You can't "return TRUE" without making
> something true.

If the sentence said that "Agora CAN do anything", then that would be
correct. That's not what it says though. It says "For this purpose, a
contract CAN do whatever it could do if it were a person in addition
to what it can do as a contract, and Agora CAN do anything." What does
the "for this purpose" mean? I think it means that the "if the
auctioneer CAN transfer the items in that lot to that winner at will"
is ignored when Agora is the Auctioneer. It's almost as if it were
changed to say "if Agora is the Auctioneer, or if the auctioneer CAN
transfer the items in that lot to that winner at will". So Agora is
exempt from the requirement.

-Aris

Reply via email to