On Sat, 18 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > The key point of CFJ 2208 was that the rules relieve the contract of > the responsibility for enforcement and assume that responsibility > themselves. I can't see how this situation is in any way analogous.
It is precisely analogous. The rules say: If (contract/entity) independently has properties (biological/devolves responsibility) then it is in class (person/partnership). You have said in your judgment that if the *entity itself* defines itself as P, despite external evidence to the contrary, then it is in fact in class A, and the only way it is not in A is if the rules apply a punishment for not being A. Now that this judgement is in, we merely take it to its logical conclusion. -G.
