On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM, C-walker<charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Bad idea-- see CFJ 1895. > > I guess I agree, and if act on behalf works already then this isn't > really necessary. What I'm most interested in is defining the > different powers of attorney so they don't have to be written out > again for every contract.
I'd like it to be explicitly legislated as well: I'm just worried about the wording. As shown in that CFJ, "as if player X is player Y" ends up a bit of a mess for, if player X is player Y, who is player X? I'd prefer a solution that amended Rule 478 to allow one player to send messages legally considered to be sent by another: this also avoids issues with the definition of "action" (e.g. can I act on behalf of someone under your definition to publish a report?). -- -c.
