On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A contract need only be "made by" persons. Once the contract is > created, there is no reason why a nonperson might not be a party. In > this case it is only necessary that an entity be able to continue > being a party upon losing personhood, but it seems to me that it might > even be possible, in principle, for a nonperson to *become* a party.
Indeed, there was a discussion around a similar CFJ back in January which came to the conclusion that non-persons could be party to contracts, despite that being contrary to the logic of the CFJs that established partnerships as persons in the first place. See the thread titled "DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1872: assign BobTHJ". Since then, I note that we've added R2197, which curiously (and probably by accident) restricts both joining and leaving contracts to persons. -root
