On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > Isn't that what I said? Ok, yes, reading to fast I was. You said:
> 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. The word "generally" is subject to modification and perhaps we should not read too much into its usage (CFJ 1850). We're not talking about general capacities to be bound, we're talking about specific ones. The entity WAS specifically bound to a contract in a legal way. Nothing unbound that entity, and its properties exist with continuity (R1586). Therefore, it is still "specifically" bound, even if it "generally" not subject to rights and obligations. A place where the rules directly contradict your assertion: R869 (last paragraph) strongly implies that in certain circumstances, non- persons may end up subject to the Rules as players. Note that R1742 refers to "persons" for the act of agreeing, but thereafter refers to "parties". Once a person has become a party, ceasing to be a person doesn't remove the fact that is a "party". -Goethe
