root wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:29 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Although this is indeed a beautiful judgement, it appears you have
>> taken the flexibility offered by equity cases and misinterpreted it as
>> the ability to impose Lindrum World on the parties to a contract
>> involved in one. However, Lindrum World is quite well safeguarded
>> against, *especially* in the equity court, for equations are quite
>> limited. They can only create SHALLs, not CANs, and it's unclear
>> whether they can even modify the original contract. Certainly they
>> can't broadly change the interpretation of the rules and state of the
>> game as this one attempts to. If this judgement is ruled valid, I
>> will deregister in protest.
>
> If they're as limited as you claim, then they're very nearly useless.
> What's the point of establishing a SHALL in an equation where the
> original contract most likely already has one?
In the case of a direct violation of a contract, there's not that much
point. In this case:
* An equation declaring "the AFO no longer qualifies as a partnership"
may or may not be effective. R591's last paragraph says that an
inquiry judgement declaring the same thing would not directly make
the declaration true, but the eventual outcome of the judicial
process (including appeal) is prima facie accepted as accurate.
* An equation could definitely declare "the AFO SHALL <actions>, or
else SHALL deregister". It couldn't usefully declare "the AFO SHALL
dissolve" unless the AFO CAN dissolve itself directly (as opposed to
its parties dissolving it).
