> On Feb 11, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>
> The current Contract definition is here in R1742:
> > 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.
>
> Here, contracts are defined by how people MAY create them.
Should we give any significance to the use of the word “may” here (as opposed
to CAN or, I suppose, MAY)? Maybe this is another bug in the contract rules.
> But it wasn't created as a contract, therefore FALSE.
I don’t see why it needs to have been created as a contract to be a contract.
To me, it seems like “contract” is merely a term defined to encompass a certain
class of entities (viz., agreements between players that are to be governed by
the Rules). That class appears on its face to include Agora itself. Not sure
why under the text of the Rule it makes any difference that Agora (and the
agreement(s) that created Agora) preexisted the class defined by the Rule.
Still seems like Agora is a member of that class of entities.
Perhaps there are situations where a high powered rule would prevent Agora from
being treated as an ordinary contract, but I don’t see why that prevents Agora
from being treated as a contract for other purposes that don’t conflict with
higher powered rules.
