Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign CFJ 1701 to Human Point Two.
I intend to cause Human Point Two to judge this FALSE, with the following arguments: Most jurisdictions support a type of partnership in which some or all partners are responsible for a proper subset of the partnership's obligations. Rule 2145 should therefore be interpreted as requiring only what it explicitly says it requires. Rule 2145's definition of "partnership" explicitly requires each of a partnership's obligations to be devolved onto at least one of its parties, but its definition of "member" does not explicitly require each member (party responsible for at least one of those obligations) to be responsible for all of them.
