On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the original contract envisioned not devolving the obligation well onto > the parties (quite likely, in fact), then I don't see what resolution the > equity case could reasonably provide beyond finding that it's not a > partnership, in which case the case couldn't have been initiated in the > first place.
That sort of finding seems, to me, to be beyond the scope of an equity case. The judgment in an equity case is limited to creating new agreements between the members of a contract, not finding of fact. That said, if a partnership doesn't devolve its obligations, then yes, it is by definition not a partnership, although this determination should, it seems to me, be made by an Inquiry case. This in itself is a bit of a problem, since such a finding means that the contract in question was never a person (assuming the text of the contract didn't change at some point causing the partnership to cease to devolve its obligations), and thus never registered, and could require a bunch of really obnoxious gamestate recalculation. R2145 should probably be rewritten to be a bit more pragmatic, but I'm not sure that redefining equity to include partnerships properly devolving obligations is the best way to do that.
