On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It follows from this that were someone to guess the Right Hand content >> referred to in the Left Hand and to become a Partner of the Left Hand >> by announcement, eir act of joining would most likely fail to bind em >> to the Right Hand, or at the very least give em the right, clause 7 of >> the Left Hand notwithstanding, to cease to be bound by the Right Hand >> (and, by clause 0, the Left Hand as well) by announcement. However, >> this is probably an issue best left to the Equity courts in case this >> scenario arises. > > I don't see how this makes any difference whatsoever. A person > entering into the agreement in this manner would either have to agree > to the Right Hand, forgoing eir R101(v) right to not be considered > bound by it, or else e would be agreeing to everything in the Left > Hand *except* clause 0, meaning that e has really not agreed to be > bound by the Left Hand at all. This again leads back to the > conclusion that the two are separate components of a single agreement.
It is possible to agree to all of Left Hand, and then have the court toss out a clause (but not the whole agreement) or declare the clause non-functional because the clause conflicts with a rule or is otherwise illegal. -Goethe
