On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
No, the second sentence states that "A Partnership comes into existence with the initiation of the Agreement that creates it." If there is no Agreement that creates a Partnership, then that sentence has no effect. The wording of the entire rule is presumptive of the existence of "persons created by Agreements", and I don't know how you can fail or refuse to see that. -root
