On Jan 7, 2008 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe that the judge's reasoning in CFJ 1719 was in error. The judge > considered some distant informal precedents, but failed to note the very real > and specific regulation of power of attorney and Executorship which previously > existed (and was required to exist to empower such things), the game custom > which > it represented, non-permissive CFJs such as 1303, and the current R2160, which > is a fine example of Exceptio probat regulam.
Deb & Bob were a player in 1993, which (I believe) predates executorship by about 2 years and power of attorney by about 5 years. Partnerships don't have formal executors, but nobody seems to be disputing that they function without them. CFJ 1303 doesn't seem relevant to me, as it is concerned with the senders of messages rather than the effectiveness of actions. Rule 2160 provides a way for players to act in place of offices, not persons. -root
