harrumph...legally speaking...there are no such things as empty words harumph
(:-]
Uli, this is in need of optimization. Consider: If 20 partners want more
than 20 partners, they can have more -- they have unamity, they can change
the agreement. If they don't want more, they don't get more -- it requires
unamity.
There is no need for a limit. It is just extra words, which are without any
real meaning.
Eric: Not really. In law we interpret _everthing contextually. If the initial
partnership agreement says 'no more than twenty' it is not set in stone and
can be changed, but if later on someone wants to pack the partnership we can
argue otherwise. Believe it or not, every comma counts. my maxim - 'Legal
documents are interpreted in their context'
so the words are actually not meaningless, they only appear redundant and
ineffective because your reading is analytic rather than synthetic (i.e.
teleological). (Last phrase is deliberately obscure in a cheap and egoistic
attempt to demonstrate my technical expertise...
8-�
^---(me with glasses looking learned...)
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
