On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 11:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:02 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> I call an equity case.
> >>>
> >>> Pledge: the above.
> >>> Parties: Sgeo and me.
> >>> State of affairs: Sgeo could stash all the currency I didn't give him,
> >>> then claim he only has to give back what he has after stashing. This
> >>> is clearly a great injustice.
> >> You aren't a party to that pledge.
> >
> > Rule 2191: "An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a
> > non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating an
> > equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is considered to be
> > a party to the pledge for the purpose of that case."
>
> However, Rule 2169 requires clearly identifying the set of parties, so
> I'm treating that case as ineffective. (Hence my latest proposal; I
> don't want to have to go back and double-check that every one of those
> initiations was accompanied by a correct set of parties.)
Ah, I was wondering what you were trying to change there. (Incidentally,
what happens in situations where the wrong parties are listed and so the
wrong parties are informed, under the new rule?)
--
ais523
