On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:02, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wilfully entering a contract with limited escape clauses and the stated > ability to change by majority (or whatever level is specified) can get > you in trouble, and I think that's quite legal, provided you have the > "reasonable opportunity to review" the changes. This right to > review doesn't necessarily guarantee the ability to escape if you > don't like the proposed changes - the right to terminate a contract > is conspicuously absent. This is why, for example, it's important to > assume that all contract change methods must be specified in the > contract; even a unanimous meta-agreement to end a contract can't > terminate a contract in the absence of a contract clause allowing it.
Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change that removed my ability to leave the contract and permitted them to change it at will - it all happened while I was asleep). I don't know how this effects the judgment. I did have a reasonable chance to review the later changes. BobTHJ
