Quazie wrote:
>> ============================== CFJ 2040 ==============================
>>
>> If a partnership is party to another contract, individual
>> members of the contract may be required, by an equity settlement
>From context, this should be interpreted as "individual members of the
[first] contract [i.e. the partnership]".
>> 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.
By "the members are a part of the partnership", did you mean "the
members are indirectly part of the settlement"?
>> ============================== CFJ 2041 ==============================
>>
>> If a partnership incurs contract obligations from another
>> contract while a particular member is a member, and that member
>From context, this should be interpreted as "while a particular member
[of the partnership] is a member [of the partnership]".
>> 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,
If you find 2040 FALSE, then surely you also find 2041 FALSE? You need
to explicitly distinguish between direct and indirect involvement.
Your conceptual point seems to be as follows, and will be plausible if
properly clarified:
* At time T, partnership P incurs an obligation due to contract C.
* At time T+X, an equation E with P as a party becomes effective.
* If M was a member of P at time T, then eir obligation to make P
satisfy its obligations wrt C extends as far as obligating em to
make P satisfy its obligations wrt E, even if e leaves P before
time T+X.
>> ============================== 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.
This is doubly wrong. First, deregistering doesn't absolve you of
contractual obligations; second, non-players are not generally
restricted from possessing or transferring assets (only certain
assets are restricted to being possessed by players).
