Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Are contracts valid in Injinland? surely, the stuff someone makes is "theirs" and nobody elses. Nobody else can own something you made, because they didn't make it - and therefore don't own it. QED. Also, contracts are only required to ascertain when people disagree, so that they know the boundaries of what they can and can't do. But there is no arbitration in Injinland, so contracts are pointless. Contracts as we know them can't really happen if you remove violence as a tool for solving problems, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Ownership doesn't wither through time. it has no half life. Ownership in the future doesn't exist because the future doesn't exist. Well, yeah. I know. So far you've got a contract to do absoutely ****** all. A ****** all that will happen with or without the contract and is completely pointless. Pointless - but factual. Your opinions < facts. Not at all. he can prevent the fulfillment of the contract if he wants. So he is not obliged. What if the exit from his garage is a cast iron sealed tunnel leading to his next door neighbours garage - which is equally sealed with only this causeway: Would he have good grounds for requiring more information when you turn up outside his house wanting to return ownership of a car - to fulfill your contract; given that you clearly are signaling that you have broken the law of physics and removed the original car from its sealed system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Ownership in the future doesn't exist because the future doesn't exist. Never said otherwise. Pointless - but factual. Your opinions < facts. Erm you were talking about contracts, which are pure 100% opinion. So he is not obliged. What if the exit from his garage is a cast iron sealed tunnel leading to his next door neighbours garage - which is equally sealed with only this causeway: Would he have good grounds for requiring more information when you turn up outside his house wanting to return ownership of a car - to fulfill your contract; given that you clearly are signaling that you have broken the law of physics and removed the original car from its sealed system? Once you've done what you can do, I see no reason whatsoever you feel any further sense of obligation, nor any reason others would want to hold you to impossible standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Once you've done what you can do, I see no reason whatsoever you feel any further sense of obligation, nor any reason others would want to hold you to impossible standards. How do you explain the car being outside the sealed system: Does the garage owner have good grounds to think that the car you are trying to return to the agreed position is not the original car - given you needed to break the law of physics to get it to the road outside his house... Does he have good reason to think its not the original car? Edited June 27, 2011 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 How do you explain the car being outside the sealed system: If you gave ownership fo the car away, anything can happen to it, including it being melted down for scrap. if you don't want those risks, don't give up ownership. Does the garage owner have good grounds to think that the car you are trying to return to the agreed position is not the original car - given you needed to break the law of physics to get it to the road outside his house... Does he have good reason to think its not the original car? Who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 If you gave ownership fo the car away, anything can happen to it, including it being melted down for scrap. if you don't want those risks, don't give up ownership. He gave ownership away. But you couldn't remove the car from the sealed system between the two garages. If it turns up on the road outside his house - it had to be driven through cold metal. Who cares? He does. The contract states the object required for the contract to be fulfilled. Does he have good reason to think its not the original car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 He gave ownership away. But you couldn't remove the car from the sealed system between the two garages. If it turns up on the road outside his house - it had to be driven through cold metal. Then you will have proof for damages (in a seperate claim.) He does. The contract states the object required for the contract to be fulfilled. Does he have good reason to think its not the original car? The one he gave ownership up of? No idea, seen no information from you about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Then you will have proof for damages (in a seperate claim.) And if the sealed system is still intact? The one he gave ownership up of? No idea, seen no information from you about that. The only information the garage owner has 1. He transferred ownership of said car - which resides within the walls of his garage. 2. The exit to the garage leads through a tunnel to another garage owned by his neighbour. 3. The two garages and tunnel are sealed securely with a metal casing. 4. This sealed casing has suffered no damage. 5. The new owner of the car drove the car out of the garage, along the tunnel. 6. The garage owner did not have sight of the car after it left his garage. Given this, does he have good reason to think the car parked outside on the road is not the original car? Edited June 27, 2011 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 And if the sealed system is still intact? Then get penn and teller in. The only information the garage owner has 1. He transferred ownership of said car - which resides within the walls of his garage. 2. The exit to the garage leads through a tunnel to another garage owned by his neighbour. 3. The two garages and tunnel are sealed securely with a metal casing. 4. This sealed casing has suffered no damage. 5. The new owner of the car drove the car out of the garage, along the tunnel. 6. The garage owner did not have sight of the car after it left his garage. Given this, does he have good reason to think the car parked outside on the road is not the original car? No idea. What idntifying marks is he using to confirm ownership? What evidence procedure does he have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Then get penn and teller in. No idea. What idntifying marks is he using to confirm ownership? What evidence procedure does he have? He knows the laws of the universe and he knows - given the cars present location - that it is highly unlikely to be the original car. Does he have good reason to think this? Edited June 27, 2011 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 He knows the laws of the universe and he knows - given the car present location - that it is highly unlikely to be the original car. Does he have good reason to think this? How is he determining this? What identifying marks is he using? What evidence procedure does he have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 How is he determining this? What identifying marks is he using? What evidence procedure does he have? It's location. The original car cannot possibly be where the new owner claims it is. Does he have good grounds to doubt it is the original car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 It's location. The original car cannot possibly be where the new owner claims it is. Does he have good grounds to doubt it is the original car? If it is impossible, then the owner is either mistaken or lying. Or ofc, the mistake is in the conception of what is and isn't possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) If it is impossible, then the owner is either mistaken or lying. The new owner is lying or mistaken? Edited June 27, 2011 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 The new owner is lying or mistaken? Either the new owner is lying or mistaken, or the original owner has made a mistake about what is and isn't possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Either the new owner is lying or mistaken, Mistaken in thinking that the car he is presenting is the original car - or the considerations of the contract? Edited June 27, 2011 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Mistaken in thinking that the car he is presenting the original car - or the considerations of the contract? Mistaken in thinking where the car is is physically impossible also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Mistaken in thinking where the car is is physically impossible also. He knows how the car got there. He put it there. He knows if its the original or not. If its not - he should not be presenting it as anything but what it is - a copy. Edited June 27, 2011 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 He knows how the car got there. He put it there. He knows if its the original or not. How? If its not - he should not be presenting it as anything but what it is - a copy. How does he know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 How? How does he know? Because he knows the history of the original car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Because he knows the history of the original car. How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) How? From the factual events of what he did with it and where he drove it. Edited June 27, 2011 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 From the factual events of what he did with it and where he drove it. How does he know the car in front of him is or isn't the original? Evidence procedure please! most humans don't have this level of proprioception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 How does he know the car in front of him is or isn't the original? Evidence procedure please! most humans don't have this level of proprioception. The same evidence procedure you yourself use to determine factual ownership. Is ownership not factual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 The same evidence procedure you yourself use to determine factual ownership. I don't have one, nor did I ever suggest one. I only outlined the principle ( which is sound.) That's one of the practicalities to be worked out. Is ownership not factual? Yes, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.