On Tuesday 15 April 2008 12:57:36 Ian Kelly wrote:
> It seems to me that the reference to "minimum number of parties" is
> The key difference between a pledge and
> another contract is not the minimum number of parties, but the fact
> that a regular contract constitutes an agreement between its mem
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it seems to me that this should just read
> "by a party without objection, if the contract is a pledge".
Plus the ugly verbiage about blocking changes, of course.
-root
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Issue: A makes a pledge 'if someone X, then I will Y as soon as
> possible.' B does X in reference to the pledge. Then before the
> deadline arrives, co-conspirator C joins the pledge and terminates it
> with the agree
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
> >> you support this revision?]
> >
> > What's the diffe
root wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
>> you support this revision?]
>
> What's the difference from the previous version?
Mainly "any of these" in both parts of the revised R2
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This removes the bit about allowing parties to the pledge to block the
> change by announcement. As I recall, the purpose of that clause was
> to protect parties to pledges who don't have first-class members in
> their ba
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
> you support this revision?]
What's the difference from the previous version? I voted against the
last one because I generally dislike "cleaning" propos
Proto-Proposal: Contract Changes, take two
(AI = 1.5, please)
[Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
you support this revision?]
Amend Rule 1742 (Contracts) by replacing this text:
A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to
it falls
8 matches
Mail list logo
