Format for e-mail
| CFJ: | 2730 |
| Interest Index: | 1 |
| Statement: | c. violated Rule 2253 (Power-2) by creating the card Presto! in eir possession. |
| Caller: | c. |
| |
| Judge: | coppro |
| Judgement: | NOT GUILTY |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | (none) |
History:
| Called by c. | 6 Nov 2009 21:39:51 GMT |
| Defendant c. informed | 6 Nov 2009 21:39:51 GMT |
| Assigned to coppro | 7 Nov 2009 19:19:12 GMT |
| Judged NOT GUILTY by coppro | 9 Nov 2009 21:08:18 GMT |
Caller's Arguments: | | (6 Nov 2009 21:39:51 GMT) |
Rule 2253:
The Dealor CAN, by announcement:
* create a Card in the possession of any entity qualified to
own that Card;
[...]
however e SHALL only perform these actions as explicitly
required by the Rules, or as would be POSSIBLE and LEGAL for em
to do were e not the Dealor.
Rule 1742:
Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that
contract.
I'm arguing that Rule 1742's obligation to act in accordance with
contracts constitutes an explicit requirement to create a Card in this
case.
In CFJ 2101, it was ruled that a message can constitute explicit
consent to a contract even if it specifically mentions neither consent
nor the contract. ("I join Contract B." is explicit consent to become
party to an equation of that contract.) I disagree with that
judgement, but by the same argument there is an explicit requirement
here and I am INNOCENT.
Caller's Evidence: | | (6 Nov 2009 21:39:51 GMT) |
I assume the office of Dealor.
I agree to the following contract: { This is a public contract and a
pledge. comex SHALL create Presto! in eir possession as soon as
possible. }
I create Presto! in my possession.
I terminate the above contract as obsolete.
I resign the office of Dealor.
Judge coppro's Arguments: | | (9 Nov 2009 21:08:18 GMT) |
In order to fulfill the requirements of R2253, the Dealor CAN only
deal a card where e is obligated to do so by the rules, or if e could
have legally done so were e not the Dealor.
comex was in fact obligated by the rules to deal emself a card, as a
result of eir contract.