Re: DIS: Re: BUS: another partnership intend

2009-10-07 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Becuase Wooble amended it to a contract imposing no obligations. No I didn't; I amended it by adding on a mousetrap and an escape clause.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: another partnership intend

2009-10-07 Thread Sean Hunt
Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:22, Sean Hunt wrote: I deregister the LNP. Fails. The LNP is still a person for 7 days following c.'s departure. BobTHJ It is no longer a partnership regardless of whether c. is a party or not. Why isn't it a p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: another partnership intend

2009-10-07 Thread Ed Murphy
coppro wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:22, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> I deregister the LNP. >>> >> Fails. The LNP is still a person for 7 days following c.'s departure. >> >> BobTHJ > It is no longer a partnership regardless of whether c. is a party or not. Why isn't it a part

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: another partnership intend

2009-10-07 Thread Sean Hunt
Roger Hicks wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:22, Sean Hunt wrote: I deregister the LNP. Fails. The LNP is still a person for 7 days following c.'s departure. BobTHJ It is no longer a partnership regardless of whether c. is a party or not. -coppro

DIS: Re: BUS: another partnership intend

2009-10-07 Thread Roger Hicks
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:22, Sean Hunt wrote: > I deregister the LNP. > Fails. The LNP is still a person for 7 days following c.'s departure. BobTHJ

DIS: Re: BUS: another partnership intend

2009-10-06 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM, comex wrote: > I hereby invoke my R101 (iv) right to leave this contract, as it was > amended without my first having the reasonable opportunity to review > the amendment. Does the right not to be bound by the amendment grant a right not to be bound by the rest of