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 thoug
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 themse
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.
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Very nice! I believe this would work if there were anything in the rules to
> suggest that a terminated contract ca
Terminated contracts don’t exist. Nonexistent entities can’t own assets.
-Aris
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Very nice! I believe this would work if there were anything in the rules
> to suggest that a terminated contract cannot own assets. :)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐
Very nice! I believe this would work if there were anything in the rules to
suggest that a terminated contract cannot own assets. :)
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:42 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>
> > I have sent
5 matches
Mail list logo
