At 3:37 AM -0700 on 11/10/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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.
Won't need to: It only takes one partner to say 'no' to adding a new partner.
