On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Though it does raise something: it it even possible for a contract > under equity to impose CANNOTs (as opposed to SHALL NOTs) on rules- > controlled actions enabled by a CAN? Any opinions?
I'd say no, that contracts can't impose CANNOTs except with respect to their own internal state. On the other hand, I'm not sure this neatly reconciles with the game custom that contracts can impose a CAN to allow delegation and acting-on-behalf.
