On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:12 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't believe the rules (especially those with power below 3) can > just create binding agreements among people, as "Every person has the > right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absence > of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a > refusal."
The proposed rule doesn't claim to bind people to the partnership without explicit consent. There's an issue of timing, where the partnership is claimed to exist while it still has no parties, but that could be ironed out. In any case, the new version dodges these issues. -root
