G. wrote:
> It is no longer a contract, because no one agrees to it, which is basic
> to the definition of "contract". So it cannot own assets.
R1742 actually gives a definition of "contract":
Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
is known as a contract.
The FBoA is an agreement that was made between consenting persons with that
intention. Whether those consenting persons _still_ so intend is not a factor
that the definition takes into account.
And they are still "consenting persons", as per R2519...
A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.
...which does not provide a mechanism to _revoke_ consent.
Aris wrote:
> Terminated contracts don’t exist.
Again, I see nothing in the rules to support this assumption.
-twg
