On 5/13/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Otherwise, if we > were going by common definitions you cite, we'd have to conclude that equity > with oneself on any level must be considered either tautology or nonsense and > cases thrown out accordingly.
Rule 2191 says that, in a pledge, the initiator of an equity case is considered to be a party for the purpose of that case. Therefore, the ONLY situation where equity would have to be evaluated with only one party is when the initiator is also the sole party of the contract. This is a sufficiently rare occurance that I do indeed argue that equity with oneself is a tautology.
