Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Smaller Contracts

2008-01-24 Thread comex
On Jan 24, 2008 3:56 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since that would not (directly) change the parties or the text of the elephant > contract, I don't intend to regulate it through this proposal (and I defined > Contract Change and capitalized it to avoid covering "other" changes of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Smaller Contracts

2008-01-24 Thread Charles Reiss
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:04:04 comex wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 11:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Enact a new rule titled "Defining Contract Changes", with Power 1.5: > > > > A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following: > > > > (a) a person who inte

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Smaller Contracts

2008-01-24 Thread comex
On Jan 24, 2008 11:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Enact a new rule titled "Defining Contract Changes", with Power 1.5: > > A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following: > > (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a party > to th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Smaller Contracts

2008-01-24 Thread Ian Kelly
On Jan 24, 2008 10:55 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CFJ 1796 says that "[p]recedent holds that agreement is not regulated and that > contracts are entered into by agreement" which thus allowed comex to enter > into an agreement that was apparently already a contract and apparently

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Smaller Contracts

2008-01-24 Thread Charles Reiss
On Thursday 24 January 2008 17:20:44 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 9:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think this still leaves small contracts in a bad state under the rules, > > given that amending, terminating and changing the parties (except by > > adding new parties (?(

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Smaller Contracts

2008-01-24 Thread Ian Kelly
On Jan 24, 2008 9:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this still leaves small contracts in a bad state under the rules, > given that amending, terminating and changing the parties (except by adding > new parties (?(*))) to contracts with <= 1 parties basically can't happen, >

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Smaller Contracts

2008-01-24 Thread Ian Kelly
On Jan 24, 2008 9:19 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit the following Proposal, entitled "Smaller Contracts" and set > its AI to 1.5: > {{ > In Rule 1742, replace the text > Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among > themselves with the intention t