Fair enough. Personally, I don't believe that use of a contract implies
intent to become a party unless the contract says it does (specifically
in an Agoran context with a strong anti-mousetrap body of case law), but
I suppose it can be made explicit in the contract so as to not test that
quest
Sure it does. "Anyone can act on my behalf to do X." implies that anyone
who does consents to join the contract. There's no by announcement
requirement for joining anymore, so it can be implied, and I think the
implication is pretty clear in this such cases. Ordinary contract law
allows someone to
Except: the new contract rule doesn't allow a person, for example, to
say "anyone CAN act on behalf of me to do X" because contracts require
two parties. It would be good to have a mechanism by which a single
person could set up an act-on-behalf. This was also an annoyance when
I was trying t
Should be untracked as they used to be, with the onus on players.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:03 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
>
>> V.J. Rada wrote:
>>
>> > This is a Notary weekly report.
>>
>> Notary was repealed by Proposal 8054.
>>
>> And pledge
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:03 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> V.J. Rada wrote:
>
> > This is a Notary weekly report.
>
> Notary was repealed by Proposal 8054.
>
> And pledges still reference it, don't they? We need to patch that. There
are three options: 1. Make pledges into a kind of contract; 2. Make
V.J. Rada wrote:
This is a Notary weekly report.
Notary was repealed by Proposal 8054.
Clarification: that is not, of course, a self-ratifying list of assets.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> This is a Notary weekly report. The following pledges exist within the
> time window
>
> PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
>
> == Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31
>
7 matches
Mail list logo
