On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > To which I'll expand: the prime example of permissiveness in CFJ 1719 was > partnerships (now gone)
Arguments: Partnerships, including the implicit ability to act on behalf of them, were originally recognized by CFJ (by you in CFJ 1622), with the only rules backing being the general ability to create "binding" agreements. The precedent is no longer sufficient for partnerships to register because "person" is now explicitly defined, but the idea that artificial persons and, more importantly in this case, power of attorney are natural parts of a legal system remains. Also, partnerships are not quite gone - Rule 2328 (Public Agreements) still exists and assumes that such agreements can implicitly act by power of attorney. A possible counter-argument is that, just as acting on behalf has historically been explicitly defined, with the definition assumed to override the existing implicit one, Promises now fulfill a similar role and should override generalized acting on behalf. But Promises work fairly differently from the usual notion of power of attorney.
