On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
The clause is not non-functional. It effectively binds Murphy and pikhq, because they have had full opportunity to review the Right Hand, and R101(v) does not apply. Where it fails is only when somebody else joins the contract without knowledge of the Right Hand. Then Murphy and pikhq can be considered bound by clause 0, but the new party cannot. In that case, can the new party be considered to have joined the same contract? -root
