On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Good question. If it said "CAN ... subject to restriction by the backing document", I think it would probably be okay. The contract could restrict the recordkeepor's actions, but only within a limited space of actions that stem from the existence of a property defined by the contract. Additionally, it would only be a restriction on possibility; it couldn't use that to obligate the recordkeepor one way or the other. But it actually says "CAN ... subject to modification by the backing document", which opens up the question of just how much modification is allowed. For instance, suppose a contract states "The recordkeepor CAN create assets by transferring a Bone to the Pumpkin King rather than by announcement, and also the CAN is modified by supplementing it with a SHALL." How much of that does R2166 actually purport to propagate? -root
