Ed Murphy wrote: >I interpret a partnership's identity, not merely as the set of its >members, but as the agreement defining that set.
What is your legal theory by which a partnership is a person, in that case? The theory that I've used is based on the partnership's rights and obligations devolving onto things that can already have rights and obligations under Agoran law. Your identity rule doesn't require that. To take a concrete example, how is Yin Corp a person, when its obligations just get shuffled around between two agreements and never devolve onto an entity that is categorically capable of taking any action? -zefram
