On 7/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby call for judgement, barring root, comex, and BobTHJ, on the
statement: to qualify as a member of a partnership one must be responsible
for all of the partnership's obligations. Argument:
Legal partnerships in most jurisdictions make all partners answerable
for any legal failing of the partnership, and that's the semantic that
I intended when drafting R2145/2. I didn't necessarily encode that
semantic correctly in the rule text, however. The question centres on
the interpretation of the word "collectively".
Well, I know how *I* would judge it... :-)
But then again, when I set down to write a judgement, I find that I
often end up judging the opposite of how I initially thought I would.
-root
