On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> Rule 2169 plainly says that "the judgement is in effect as a binding
> agreement between the parties [of the original contract].".
But R2145, which states that responsibilities devolve to members, clearly
has precedence over R2169.
I agree with everything you say for non-partnerships. As pointed out,
true LLCs are possible as non-partnership contracts, but an LLC would
lose the privilege(?) of being a player.
It comes down to what does "devolve" mean? Dictionary: "to pass on (as
responsibility, rights, or powers) from one person or entity to another".
(Although, it looks right now like it might mean "To degenerate or
deteriorate gradually"). You admit that responsibilities can devolve
through the criminal court, but (and this is simple, not complex as you
ascribe to me) R2145 simply says "responsibilities" as a whole, and
therefore includes passing on contractual (equity) obligations to its
members. So it might come down to a simple precedence battle between
R2145 and R2169: R2145 states that responsibilities in general devolve,
those responsibilities include equity responsibilities, R2145 has
precedence over R2169, so a reasonable interpretation is that equity
settlements devolve to include members.
> b) every party clearly has the R101 (iv) right to refuse to agree to
> an equation.
If you couldn't "sign away" some portion of your rights, contracts wouldn't
work at all, and the courts have clearly showed that they do actually
function. By agreeing to a partnership, you agree to its formal mechanisms
for joining contracts, and therefore (in the R101iv) sense, when it
joins a contract, your R101 rights aren't violated by saying you agreed
to the process. Remember this phrase in an old rule:
The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima
facie, be considered to be protective of a Player's rights and
privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to
be bound by the rules.
This was removed, but not replaced, so the rules are silent on this
issue, and on whether similar mechanisms in partnerships are similarly
"protective" (e.g. if your partnership joins a contest by majority
vote, but you voted against it, your rights are still protected because
you agreed to the voting process).
> "The parties SHALL act to ensure that the
> partnership meets its repsonsibilities..."
The equity courts have been used to make an adjustment when a SHALL
has been found to be broken.
> Goethe's judgement of the bank robbery equity case may be reasonable,
> but the same power could be used for quite a bit of evil, especially
> if an appeals panel is bribed to judge AFFIRM-- I support this role
> for the equity court.
Well, the case doesn't even exist now :).
> The role can be changed by proposal, but I
> think trying to strengthen the equity court via the judicial system,
> when the relevant Rules seem (to me) pretty unambiguous, is a losing
> battle.
I am in complete agreement that clear legislation is necessary to
clarify the whole matter. Off, now, to read Murphy's proposal.
-Goethe
