--- Wooble definition
--- Wooble. The problem in a case like this is that there's no way for the equity court to actually restore equity; I can't very well order ehird to unreveal the secret information. A simple punishment by means of creating an obligation on ehird that is impossible for em to meet would be an alternative, although R1742 tells us it would be manifestly unfair to bring such criminal punishment, so I'd expect a criminal court in a case brought for not meeting that punitive obligation to sentence DISCHARGE. ---- Goethe: Oh I'm not arguing with a null result; I don't in fact have an opinion on the equity there. I'm just pointing out the error in reasoning in saying "a contract isn't enforceable because one party should have envisioned the other party being inherently untrustworthy". Arguably, contract law is all about applying penalties to people might be untrustworthy. Perhaps the issue is just the definition of "envisioned by contract" versus "envisioned by its parties". If I say "I signed this contract because I envisioned you might break the deal otherwise" it's wrong to say "because you envisioned that I might break this contract; the breakage was envisioned by the contract and therefore not a breach.") ======================================================================== Appellant woggle's Arguments: I support this. Inability to construct an equitable resolution now that the cat is out of the bag and ehird is a non-player or ais523's apparent unwilliness to provide the text of the contract might be reasonable reasons for a null judgment, but ehird's history should not be. ======================================================================== Appellant G.'s Arguments: [excerpts from discussion thread mentioned]: comex wrote: > Affairs proceeded as envisioned by any reasonable observer of the > game, quite possibly, but not as envisioned by the contract. Which I > suspect was the point: ehird might be expected to violate the > contract, but only if e's willing to face a hostile equation. Goethe wrote: > Oh I'm not arguing with a null result; I don't in fact have an opinion > on the equity there. I'm just pointing out the error in reasoning in > saying "a contract isn't enforceable because one party should have > envisioned the other party being inherently untrustworthy". Arguably, > contract law is all about applying penalties to people might be > untrustworthy. > > Perhaps the issue is just the definition of "envisioned by contract" > versus "envisioned by its part...