On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2097 > > ============================== CFJ 2097 ============================== > > The Executor of a message that contains a CFJ is also the > Initiator of that CFJ, even if the Executor says E submits the > CFJ on behalf of someone/something else > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: Quazie > > Judge: woggle > Judgement: > > ========================================================================
Proto-judgement: There is one case where the answer is clear. That is the case of a partnership initiating an equity case for a contract it is not a party to. In the case of a partnership structured like the PerlNomic Partnership, it is not unlikely that the executor would not be qualified to initiate that equity case and not be easy to determine. As partnerships have long been recognized to have a right to act and certainly should have the R101(iii) to resolve controversies concerning a contract that have joined and given that the uncertainty in determining the Executor would be disruptive not in the best interest of the game. Therefore, I judge FALSE. Now, the apparent real purpose of this CFJ is to overturn act-on-behalf rights, which presently are primarily a matter of game custom and judicial precedent. It would be injust to overturn this in the case of partnerships as then the rule's definition of partnerships as persons would be pretty useless. The more interesting case, of course, is that of first-class persons.
