On Friday 18 January 2008 02:46:23 Ian Kelly wrote: > 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
A properly written pledge could probably prevent the joining, though to be a contract, it would need to have had 2 parties at some point. But, regardless, I think the contract rules are generally pretty poor, if not seriously flawed, regarding 0 and 1 person contracts. There probably needs to be more explicit regulation of creating, becoming a party to, ceasing to be a party to, and changing pledges and locations. -woggle
