On Feb 3, 2008 9:55 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given the high likelihood that CFJ 1892 will establish a clear > precedent that a contract that's not binding cannot exist by > definition, would it be appropriate to wait for its judgment and then > judge 1893 without considering these 2 requests, which are nonsensical > if this is the case?
I think that's reasonable. My intention when I initiated this case was that it should be linked to CFJ 1892. -root
