On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 22:44, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I change all sitting players to standing. > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2216 > > ============================== CFJ 2216 ============================== > > If only Murphy had been given the password referenced in the > Russian Roulette contract and a reasonable amount of time to > review the section of the contract encrypted using that > password, then the AFO would be bound by that contract. > > ======================================================================== > > ============================== CFJ 2217 ============================== > > If only comex had been given the password referenced in the > Russian Roulette contract and a reasonable amount of time to > review the section of the contract encrypted using that > password, then the AFO would be bound by that contract. > > ======================================================================== >
I judge both of these FALSE. It is difficult to determine who the mind of a partnership is for the purposes of R101 review rights. But, in effect, agreements of the partnerships are extensions of the partnership contract for those onto whom the partnership devolves (that is, requires to cause the partnership to act to fulfill) the obligations of such agreements. The AFO contract devolves all obligations of any agreement to which it is bound onto all of its parties; and theoretically any of them could be found GUILTY for failing to cause the AFO to fulfill these obligations. Thus, given a partnership structured as the AFO is, any agreement cannot successfully impose obligations on the AFO until all partners have had a reasonable opportunity to review that agreement. -woggle
