[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I argue that this is valid because R1742 doesn't restrict how I can change the set of parties,
Requires "agreement between all parties". I believe that includes the prospective new parties. > most importantly, because X is not >binding, thus not a binding agreement and so R101 (iv) doesn't apply. I don't think that your concept of a non-binding contract will stand up. Even if it does, press-ganging parties patently does not constitute a delegation of message sending rights for CFJ 1833 analysis. -zefram
