root wrote:
> No, it does not. [R2145] explicitly defines partnerships.
Sorry, no. The second sentence states that partnerships are created
by agreements, and by the first sentence, those partnerships are in the
set of non-natural persons. Since it's legal to make these partnerships,
it's possible for the set of non-natural persons to have members.
The final sentence explicitly includes partnerships and therefore
non-natural persons in the category of persons in general:
without disrupting the existence of the Partnership as a person
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I find it hard to see how a judicial precedent applied to an old ruleset
can explicitly override a contradictory rule contained in a more recent
one. If R2145 did not exist, fine. But it does.
-Goethe
