Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
at the times in question, neither Yin Corp nor Yang Corp were
tied to any natural persons whatsoever.
In the three minutes before Mon, 21 May 2007 20:19:27 -0500, Quazie was a
partner in Yin Corp, so Yin Corp could be a person under existing legal
theories. (Though we have not explicitly addressed the question of a
partnership that ultimately devolves obligations onto a single natural
person.)
This is debatably covered by CFJ 1682, depending on how you want to
split the difference between
(a) a purported R1742 agreement involving only one natural person
from the start (e.g. square root)
and
(b) a R1742 agreement involving two or more natural persons at
first, but then coming to involve only one natural person
(e.g. Yin Corp)
> The judgement of CFJs 1666-1668 implies that Yin Corp is at
all times distinct from Quazie. I therefore call for appeal of CFJ 1681.
I continue to interpret CFJ 1681 as false, but acknowledge that the
arguments supporting that interpretation need improvement.
