On 7/6/09 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: [snip] > > That aside, it's a more general issue. Let's say I have a detailed > private contract with all sorts of economic and political manipulations. > One small part of that is an "act on behalf of". When it happens, > all the public needs to know is that the clause exists (and that it's > not contested between grantor and grantee, which can be accomplished > by a self-ratify period). It's possible to use the manipulations above > to make those sorts of sub-contracts, but the Rule should be more > flexible and just allow the publication of the clause to be sufficient, > as it's a natural function of private contracts. This rule just places > a bureaucratic burden on something that remains possible anyway.
Since undoubtedly, the various parts of your detailed private contract will interact in all sorts of fun ways, I do not want to have to figure out whether the clause you published is really effective in the context of the contract or not. While we could attempt to define what it means to publish a suitable "contract detail" and make errors self-ratifying or similar, I really think it's easier to just require it to be a separate contract, so we know its POSSIBILITY is not overridden by unseen clauses. -woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
