Charles Reiss wrote: >I'm tempted to just rule IRRELEVANT because, as far as I can tell, >'partner' is not a term used or defined by the rules.
We've historically been quite liberal in what we're willing to judge on. You're never obliged to judge IRRELEVANT, and in this case you have relevant things to comment on, even though the statement is poorly chosen. I suggest that you give a substantive judgement such as you've protoed. >The AFO is trivially not part of the basis of Agora's Child Yes. >If the AFO in fact ceased to be a party to Agora's Child, then it >could not have Agora's Child's legal obligations devovled onto itself: Yes. You should reference CFJ 1686 here. >absent a requirement in the Agoran rules for the AFO to follow this >agreement to which it is not a party, the obligations are not devolved >onto the AFO for the purposes of the rules of Agora. Exactly the right viewpoint. See CFJ 1687 for a similar application of this principle. -zefram
