On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:28:10 comex wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 10:10 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As pikhq notes, contracts are binding. So one might interpret your > > change to the contract to make it non-binding as an act of > > dissolution. > > Nonsense. They merely have to be made "with the intention that [they] > be binding". There's no reason they can't be "modified" later to no > longer be so.
By making it non-binding, one makes it so that any party may leave the contract. ;p
