On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So it seems to me that this should just read > "by a party without objection, if the contract is a pledge".
Plus the ugly verbiage about blocking changes, of course. -root
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So it seems to me that this should just read > "by a party without objection, if the contract is a pledge".
Plus the ugly verbiage about blocking changes, of course. -root