On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 23:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Benjamin Schultz <ke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:08 PM, comex wrote: > >>> Is it even possible to have fractional assets? > >> > >> Why not? I don't see anything in R2166 specifying a MUQ for assets. > > Except that by R2166 single "asset" is an entity, and entities are not > generally divisible; assets in particular are regulated and the rules don't > say anything about dividing them; and I'd say that when a backing document > defines e.g. that "ribbons are a class of fixed assets" it is a pretty > strong implication that the singular "ribbon" is a single asset, therefore > one entity, therefore indivisible. No it's not 100% clear so legislative > or judicial clarity would be nice... > > Uh oh, R2228 has a grammatical error, says "Rests are a fixed asset" > (singular). Does that mean that the set of all Rests is a single > indivisible asset? > I think this one is R754able under the carpet, as there's no real ambiguity here.
Might be good to get the Rulekeepor to clean the rule, though. -- ais523
