On Jan 16, 2008 12:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except, we've just changed the rules so that these CFJs no longer apply.
> It's no longer enough to retain the capacity, the partnership must be
> public. So it's no contradiction that the contract didn't change and
> is still bind
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Now here's a queer thing. If a partnership is has the "general
> capacity...", and it ceases to be a person, but it can still be bound
> by any and all of the same the agreements it was bound by as a person,
> then there's no reason to presume that it cou
On Jan 15, 2008 5:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A partnership that is not a person simply does not have, per R2150,
> > "the general capacity to be the subject of rights and obligations
> > under the rules". Therefore it cannot be bound by a contract.
>
> The word "generally" i
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Isn't that what I said?
Ok, yes, reading to fast I was. You said:
> A partnership that is not a person simply does not have, per R2150,
> "the general capacity to be the subject of rights and obligations
> under the rules". Therefore it cannot be bound b
On Jan 15, 2008 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, we're talking about if a partnership loses its personhood, as a
> nonperson is it still bound to other non-partnership contracts that it
> signed while a person? Or are we talking about two entirely different
> things again? -G
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The legal basis around which partnerships were created was, roughly,
>>> that a person is an entity upon which legal obligations can be
>>> imposed.
>>
>> That's partnerships, but not agree
On Jan 15, 2008 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The legal basis around which partnerships were created was, roughly,
> > that a person is an entity upon which legal obligations can be
> > imposed.
>
> That's partnerships, but not agreements in general.
Irrelevant. We're talkin
On Jan 15, 2008 3:41 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >Good point. I suggest that this illustrates a flaw in our definition
> >of "person".
>
> I think it's a good reason why obligations ought to survive an
> interruption of personhood.
That would be a convenient solutio
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hold on thar, pardners. You need to be a person to make an agreement
>> (R1742), but you don't need to be a person to *stay in* an agreement.
>> After making it, you just need to remain a "
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Good point. I suggest that this illustrates a flaw in our definition
>of "person".
I think it's a good reason why obligations ought to survive an
interruption of personhood.
-zefram
On Jan 15, 2008 2:37 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not true for partnerships. They can cease to devolve their
> obligations onto two people momentarily and then resume devolving the
> obligations onto two people.
Good point. I suggest that this illustrates a flaw in our d
On Jan 15, 2008 4:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fortunately, the rules don't provide any way for a nonperson to become
> > a person (other than by ceasing to exist).
>
> That should be "for a person to become a nonper
On Jan 15, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fortunately, the rules don't provide any way for a nonperson to become
> a person (other than by ceasing to exist).
That should be "for a person to become a nonperson"...
-root
On Jan 15, 2008 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hold on thar, pardners. You need to be a person to make an agreement
> (R1742), but you don't need to be a person to *stay in* an agreement.
> After making it, you just need to remain a "party".
The legal basis around which partner
On Jan 15, 2008 1:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If only persons can be parties (question of ordinary-language
> interpretation), then Rule 1742 terminated the Vote Market on
> Dec 31. Question is, did pikhq's joining on Jan 7 back-reference
> BobTHJ's original joining on Dec 14 to
root wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 11:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is the relevant timeline:
Dec 14: BobTHJ and Fookiemyartug form the VM
Dec 31: P2PP joins; Proposal 5381 revokes personhood from non-public
contracts
Jan 7: pikhq joins
Jan 10: root joins
Jan 14: root l
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Hypothetical: When Fookiemyartug ceased to be a person, did it cease
>> to be bound by the agreement? -Goethe
>
> Here is the relevant timeline:
>
> Dec 14: BobTHJ and Fookiemyartug form the VM
> Dec 31: P2PP joins; Proposal 5381 revokes personhood from
On Jan 15, 2008 11:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the relevant timeline:
>
> Dec 14: BobTHJ and Fookiemyartug form the VM
> Dec 31: P2PP joins; Proposal 5381 revokes personhood from non-public
>contracts
> Jan 7: pikhq joins
> Jan 10: root joins
> Jan 14: root le
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
At the point in time that Vote Market was formed
Fookiemyartug was a person (as comex had already joined). Therefore
there were two parties to at its inception and the Vote Market
contract was in formed correctly.
Hypothetical: When Fooki
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> At the point in time that Vote Market was formed
> Fookiemyartug was a person (as comex had already joined). Therefore
> there were two parties to at its inception and the Vote Market
> contract was in formed correctly.
Hypothetical: When Fookiemyartug
20 matches
Mail list logo
