Ian Kelly wrote:
>Have you considered the possibility that the contract, as a means of
>creating obligations but not otherwise changing game state, merely
>required comex to authorize the AFO to act on eir behalf, and that
>comex's redaction of that authorization was effective but in violation
>of
On Dec 20, 2007 4:36 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These two aspects are in conflict: by the contract comex explicitly
> authorises the AFO to act on eir behalf, but by eir later statement
> e purports to repudiate such authorisation. Due to the conflict, the
> statement might conceivabl
2 matches
Mail list logo
