On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:41 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> >> I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> >> parties, known as NSC.
> > Can you point out in which message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be
> > public - the parties consented to the agreement, thereby causing it to
> > become a contract?
> >
> > -twg
>
> Ehh... not quite.
>
> Rule 1742 ("Contracts") reads:
>
> > For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and
> > agreement specified by contract.
>
> The contract could have specified other ways to agree to it, besides
> public consent.
No, the person has to be a party to the contract first for the
contract to specify how they can agree. Otherwise that clause is badly
broken (which might be the case...)
-Aris
