On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote: > It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors > is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them > is the contract, then its existence depends on the contract.
And my dependents would survive without me but they *legally* depend on me. It's a legal distinction. Sorry, I should have included that it was the clear intent of the rule and discussed the legal ramifications of dependencies and "depends on" in a legal context. That will take some more scholarship. We can't use "depends only on" because nothing exists in a vacuum. But we also shouldn't use "depends slightly on" (that's clearly outside the bounds of intent). So I'm arguing for a "depends, primarily, in a legal sense, due to delegation of authority". > That is to say, it's common usage to say "X's existence depends on Y" > when there are things other than Y that might destroy X-- which is the > case for nearly all entities other than the imaginary ones we > manipulate in this nomic. Of course. All of Agora depends on email to exist. Contracts depend on language. I agree with you that it doesn't mean that R1728 clause is wholly broken because nothing exists in a vacuum. > Accordingly, I find your test unreasonable. It makes sense for > language such as "entities regulated by the contract" or "entities > defined by the contract", but not for the language that R1728 actually > uses. Accordingly, I will research the *legal* ramifications of "depends on for existence" and dependencies in general, otherwise we can't use "depends on" at all. One can trace legal dependencies in general by strength of claim, that's perfectly kosher. -G.
