On Feb 2, 2008 8:09 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It also had clauses governing how it could be amended and have its set of > parties changed, which could be argued to create obligations to agree or not > agree to certain changes to the parties and text of the contract. But, a more > reasonable interpretation (and what I was expecting most people to conclude) > is that the obligations an agreement purports to impose or not impose are not > a good basis for determining if a agreement is binding.
Indeed, I would argue that there are two components to any R1742 agreement: the agreement to obey the terms of the contract, i.e. to be bound by it, and the agreement to recognize the legal fictions defined by the contract. comex's contract has allegedly absolved the first aspect of the agreement, but not the second. -root
