This is a very proto judgement, more me speaking my mind on the issues before I come up with a full judgement. This judgement is known to be incomplete and potentially incoherent. This will be fixed before real judging occurs. > ============================== CFJ 2040 ============================== > > If a partnership is party to another contract, individual > members of the contract may be required, by an equity settlement > involving the second contract, to be parties to the settlement, > even if the partnership agreement does not explicitly allow > this. > > ========================================================================
This CFJ seems to be FALSE. Why should a member of a partnership incur obligations when the partnership's obligations devolve onto em. The partnership can certainly be required to be party to the settlement, but I see no reason for the individual members themselves to be required to be parties. In fact, by having the partnership be party to the settlement the members are a part of the partnership as the partnership's obligations have been devolved onto them. > ============================== CFJ 2041 ============================== > > If a partnership incurs contract obligations from another > contract while a particular member is a member, and that member > departs the partnership, the member in question may be required > by an equity settlement involving the second contract to be a > party to the settlement, even if the partnership agreement > does not explicitly allow this. > > ======================================================================== This CFJ I find to be true, but only in cases in which the equity case is about an obligation that was incurred while the former member in question was still a member of the partnership. As the partnership still exists, it is still able to incur obligations, so this case is not similar to when a first-class player leaves a contract. Furthermore when the partnership is required to become party to a settlement not all of the players that incurred the obligation have become part of the settlement. As a result, in this case a former member is unable to escape their obligation by leaving the partnership and may be required to become party to the settlement. > > ============================== CFJ 2042 ============================== > > If a partnership dissolves after having incurred obligations > from another contract, the former members may be required by an > equity settlement involving the second contract to be a parties > to the settlement. > > ======================================================================== On one hand I could find this statement to be FALSE. This situation is essentially the same as a person deregistering. If I were to make a contract with another player, saying that if that player voted in a certain way I would give them a particular asset, and then I deregistered, there would be no way for me to give them that asset, and I wouldn't be obligated to perform the action of giving them the asset. On the other hand the obligation has been devolved onto its members or it wouldn't be a partnership. As this is the case, as long as the former members still exist as players, they themselves have incurred these obligations. Whether or not the partnership still exists, those former members who are still players are still under the obligation. This is the same situation as if a player were to leave a contract while they are still under obligation, which is the same situation as what seems to have occured recently with comex and pikhq, where pikhq stole comex's 50 VP and then didin't perform eir end of the bargain. It seems like in this situation pikhq would NOT be required to be part of an equity settlement. I find this CFJ to be FALSE ----- If any of these arguments don't make sense, i'm sorry, this is draft 1 of this judgement. I wanted to put these thoughts out to the general agoran public before they become fully polished as a full fledged non-proto judgement.
