On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Hands have generally been treated as separate contracts, and now,
> because they have clauses excluding people from each if they're not a
> party to the other, you say that each Hand is an "arbitrary subset"?
Yes.
> You say th
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe you care about a different abstract level than those who agree
>> to the Hands; I expect that most of their parties care that they be
>> treated as separa
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe you care about a different abstract level than those who agree
>> to the Hands; I expect that most of their parties care that they be
>> treated as separate contracts.
>
> What matters is how the rules view it, not the pa
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> At Place X, if I buy a chocolate bar I must buy an ice cream cone, and
>>> if I buy an ice cream cone I must buy a chocolate bar. Therefore, the
>>> chocolate
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At Place X, if I buy a chocolate bar I must buy an ice cream cone, and
>> if I buy an ice cream cone I must buy a chocolate bar. Therefore, the
>> chocolate bar and the ice cream cone together are one item.
>
> They're two sepa
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:29 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see how this makes any difference whatsoever. A person
>> entering into the agreement in this manner would either have to agree
>> to the Right Hand, f
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see how this makes any difference whatsoever. A person
> entering into the agreement in this manner would either have to agree
> to the Right Hand, forgoing eir R101(v) right to not be considered
> bound by it, or else
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is possible to agree to all of Left Hand, and then have the court
> toss out a clause (but not the whole agreement) or declare the clause
> non-functional because the clause conflicts with a rule or is otherwise
> illegal.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It follows from this that were someone to guess the Right Hand content
>> referred to in the Left Hand and to become a Partner of the Left Hand
>> by announcement, eir act of joining
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It follows from this that were someone to guess the Right Hand content
> referred to in the Left Hand and to become a Partner of the Left Hand
> by announcement, eir act of joining would most likely fail to bind em
> to the
10 matches
Mail list logo
