On Jan 17, 2008 7:14 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obtaining agreement requires that two people be involved, but "all parties" > is just one person in such a case.
The precedent in CFJs 1682 and 1683 suggests that this is probably correct. > Clearly, it would against the intention of the Pledges rule (which allows > the pledge to be changed without Objection) if a single party to a pledge > could cease to be a party to it by agreeing with themselves. Yes, but I don't think that a ruling based on the argument above would necessarily uphold this intention any better. Consider the case where the single party to a pledge invites another person to join, and they then agree to terminate the contract. -root
