 Jackson and Pargetter rightly conclude from this that Procrastinate can avoid violating any obligation because if Procrastinate were to do something that she can do, viz. ⟨agree to review the paper &amp; then write the review⟩, then Procrastinate wouldn’t be obligated to ⟨decline to review the paper⟩ in the first place, and thus there would be no unfulfilled obligations (Jackson 1985: 194; Jackson &amp; Pargetter 1986: 242–243; Louise 2009: 330; Jackson 2014: 636). In this sense, according to contextualist actualism, the obligation to ⟨agree to review the paper &amp; then write the review⟩ overrides the obligation to ⟨decline to review the paper⟩. More generally, at time t an agent can do something over time such that, if it were done, then their primary obligation would be fulfilled, and the agent would not have any unfulfilled obligations from t onwards. Jackson and Pargetter’s view is more similar to possibilism in comparison to standard formulations of actualism insofar as Jackson and Pargetter agree with possibilists about an agent’s obligation to perform the same maximal act-set. The difference between contextualist actualism and possibilism is that the former view affirms the existence of additional obligations that arise from sets of options that do not include this maximal act-set.