Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
It's not against the AFO contract, which allows any partner to control
the partnership itself without prior consultation. The interesting
question is whether the contract rules recognize this;
It doesn't qualify as any of the formulations of rule 2178. It includes
neither the contract text nor any of the three options for the notice
of intent. I think it is therefore not effective in making the AFO a
public contract.
I was thinking of Rule 1742's "A public contract is a contract that
identifies itself as such", but it was the partnership (contract +
set of partners) and not merely the contract that pikhq caused to act.
Rule 1742 has been amended once since the time in question, but the
amendment only changed the first paragraph, which is not relevant to
this issue.
