Just filling in some Power of Attorney history here: > In this case, CFJ 1941 seems to establish that in May this year, it was > already established custom that an effective Power of Attorney was > grantable in practice via contracts, once the rules no longer gave a > method of doing so. Going back earlier, CFJ 1815 implies that > partnerships were considered to be capable of acting via act-on-behalf > (this makes sense because otherwise partnerships would not have the R101 > right to participate);
The partnership intuition is correct. Pretty soon after Partnerships were judged to be persons, CFJ 1695 found that on-behalf-of had to work for partnerships so as to not violate their participation rights. This did not address issues of granting acting PoA between first-class persons. Following that, there was substantial discussion at the time as to whether PoA abilities existed between persons if granted by contract, since the explicit PoA rules had been repealed (I at the time believed they didn't work). Judge Zefram firmly established them however in the very-thorough CFJ 1719, which included custom references back to some of the dimmest early periods of the game and showed it to be a quite "natural" custom in the absence of specific legislation. -Goethe
