Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)

[Kerim Aydin <kerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> While Agoran precedent is not applicable here, the arguments that personhood
>> applies to a contract don't depend on any particular Agoran Rule, and could
>> be transferred here (http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1623).
>>
>
> These arguments seem relevant. However, I'm not convinced. The B rule
> currently refers to the legal definition of "[a]ny term primarily used
> in mathematical or legal contexts..." I think you'd be hard-pressed to
> argue that the word "person" is *primarily* used in a legal context
> (or a mathematical one). 

It's worth pointing out that your arguments above were very similar to 
the (strong) counterarguments presented at the time in Agora; it was a 
controversial decision there with support for both sides and the result
was ultimately due to the particular judge (who had a background in some
contract law IIRC). -G.

 



_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss