| Kerim Aydin on Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:09:01 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE) |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, James Baxter wrote: > "Person" can be assumed to take the standard English definition (precedent for this is the way "attribute" was used in era 5). Although contracts can still exist (Rule 1 point i), they have no power under the rules. The contract is not a person by the standard English definition and so cannot register. 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). However, extending legal personhood to contracts was on the basis that contracts were a recognized legal construct (that is defined within Agoran rules) so there's a harder row to hoe here if you extend it to non- recognized entities. -Goethe. _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss