Peekee wrote: > Why should >(theoretically, not in terms of current rules) every member be >responsible for everything?
That's the way a legal partnership usually works. Of course members of a partnership divide up responsibilities internally, but if a legal obligation is not met then all are answerable. The technical term is "jointly and severally liable". I certainly intended it to work that way, and I don't fancy requiring the courts to work out which of the members incurs a particular obligation. -zefram
