On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > Perhaps this is a better analogy than the pledge I created. When an > equity case is called, a person external to the contract is required > to judge it. But both the subject and the appropriate judgements of > the equity case depend on what the contract actually says. So > wouldn't an equity judge be "bound" to the contract against eir will > in the same manner as the recordkeepor of bananas?
Okay, you've convinced me I think. What do you think of the other piece? R2166 says that a recordkeepor CAN generally create/destroy assets "subject to the backing document." If the backing document "subjects" the recordkeepor to limitation, it is truly binding em, and (if e is not a member) this is impossible. (I submit that "making a person's action subject to something" is a very strong synonym for binding--look up "subject"). Therefore, the R2166 "CAN" empowers em to create/destroy assets, but the backing document is incapable of limiting em. -G.
