Rule 1472 says “A contract may also terminate by agreement between all parties.” That’s what happened here. Per Merriam-Webster, the relevant intransitive definition of “terminate” is to “come to an end in time.” I’m not sure why a contract that has “come to an end in time” would still be thought to exist, or be capable of holding assets, after that time. If it holds assets, then in that particular respect it hasn’t yet “come to an end.”
> On Oct 12, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > > G. wrote: >> It is no longer a contract, because no one agrees to it, which is basic >> to the definition of "contract". So it cannot own assets. > > R1742 actually gives a definition of "contract": > > Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may > make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be > binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement > is known as a contract. > > The FBoA is an agreement that was made between consenting persons with that > intention. Whether those consenting persons _still_ so intend is not a factor > that the definition takes into account. > > And they are still "consenting persons", as per R2519... > > A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting > as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. > > ...which does not provide a mechanism to _revoke_ consent. > > Aris wrote: >> Terminated contracts don’t exist. > > Again, I see nothing in the rules to support this assumption. > > -twg
