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

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.

Indeed, I've read the case record from Agora and it looks like it was
not an easy decision. It's not cut-and-dried here, either, and I'm not
convinced the answer should be the same one.

But I'm not sufficiently convinced it shouldn't be to turn in my judgement yet.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss