Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Law

Jamie Dallaire on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:52:50 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Law

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Law
From: "Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:52:45 -0500
In-reply-to: <7db5cba20801291424t28813c71ta17c92dd718c3b2a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <56732cfd0801281539s3e3cebf7u419269861e7155e6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650801281552q1001ef9fq5046dd9ac43aaa73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <56732cfd0801282131x5da926dsa378b7064da9ff23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7db5cba20801291424t28813c71ta17c92dd718c3b2a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 1/29/08, ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Well, there's nothing actually preventing a Priest from submitting an
> Oracularity that gives some higher punishment. I think I'll amend my
> proposal to "encourage" that.

There isn't, though a minimum punishment non-specific to the contract
dispute still applies. e.g. if I wrong you and the judge orders me to pay
you m100, I also still need to pay at least the minimum punishment for a
felony or misdemeanor.

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

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Law
  - From: Jamie Dallaire
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Law
  - From: Roger Hicks
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Law
  - From: ihope

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Law
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposals: "The Beast" and "Random Rule Destruction"
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Law
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contesting display.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread