On Jan 15, 2008 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The legal basis around which partnerships were created was, roughly, > > that a person is an entity upon which legal obligations can be > > imposed. > > That's partnerships, but not agreements in general.
Irrelevant. We're talking about partnerships losing their personhood, not about nonperson contracts losing their personhood, which they don't have in the first place. A partnership that is not a person simply does not have, per R2150, "the general capacity to be the subject of rights and obligations under the rules". Therefore it cannot be bound by a contract. > But they did cause a person to become a nonperson, which is the situation > that is relevant. Yes, but not in a manner controlled by that person, which was the context in which I was responding. Unfortunately, as woggle has pointed out, I was incorrect; partnerships are generally capable of flipping their personhood on and off at will. -root
