On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > R2145 seems clear and explicit enough to me in defining only those > that do devolve obligations as persons. I don't really see a reading > of the rule that would lend itself to ruling otherwise, and I don't > see any ambiguity in the wording that would allow for a "best > interests of the game" judgment under R217.
What's not clear about R2145 is what constitutes "devolving". Is the "devolve" pragmatic or platonic? That's not defined! For example, what if the partnership text SAYS that it devolves responsibilities, then a partnership doesn't follow up on something, and no party of that contract brings a case alleging an infringement? That's a case of a partnership's operations being in contradiction with its text, but with no one outside the partnership able to bring a case against it. It would be in keeping with current rules to state "devolve is pragmatic, if you claim to be a partnership, then we can enforce that devolution on you." -Goethe
