Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

[Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Elliott Hird
<penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2008, at 00:10, Sgeo wrote:
>> I would support something where contracts can be designated "safe" or
>> "not-safe", at the contract maker's discretion. Contracts designated
>> "safe" would have protections for parties to the contract that
>> "not-safe" would not have..
>
> safe contracts are against the spirit of nomic.
>
> IMO.

Not allowing people to enter into a safe contract if they want to is
against the spirit of... something important.

My suggestion: allow contracts to have Immutable Clauses, which take
precedence over the rest of the contract and cannot be amended unless
all parties agree. A contract could then have an Immutable Clause
stating something like "Obligations incurred by the remainder of this
contract are not binding; however, all parties to this contract shall
obey any resolution passed by Timmy's Arbitration Service."

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