On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Strongly object. Experimenting with the lack of a requirement to >> consult the other partners has been the point of the AFO from day one. > > And the mere existence of this equity case shows that one partner > wasn't happy with that arrangement, even if e changed eir mind once e > filed this CFJ and you returned the assets. I'm not sure why this CFJ > wasn't retracted before the pre-trial phase ended.
But in this case, given Murphy and comex's statements on the very nature of the AFO and the experiment, such possible outcomes could/should have been envisioned by the contract and its parties. -Goethe
