On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 26 September 2008 03:43:20 pm Ian Kelly wrote: >> I think you'd have a hard time justifying that a partnership >> without human intervention is a partnership. > > Didn't we discuss recently whether you can have a partnership that > requires but not enables its members to ensure that it follows the > rules?
Yes, but here we seem to have a partnership that doesn't even require that of its members. Per R2145, that's not a partnership. -root
