Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More /dev/null stuff

2008-09-23 Thread Ian Kelly
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had the same thought and I'd argue for a judgment of UNDETERMINED, > but in any case R2198 doesn't use this language; "agreement between > all the parties" seems less ambiguous. Ah, I didn't realize that "by unanimous

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More /dev/null stuff

2008-09-23 Thread Ian Kelly
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 23 September 2008 11:51:34 am Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> I call for judge

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More /dev/null stuff

2008-09-23 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem is this: does "by unanimous consent of its parties" > mean "by any party with the consent of all parties" or "by any person > with the consent of all parties"? I had the same thought and I'd argue for a judgment

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More /dev/null stuff

2008-09-23 Thread Ben Caplan
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 11:51:34 am Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I call for judgement on the statement "If a non-pledge contract > >> has no parties, it can be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More /dev/null stuff

2008-09-23 Thread Ian Kelly
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I call for judgement on the statement "If a non-pledge contract has no >> parties, it can be amended by unanimous consent of its parties." > > Trivially FALSE.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More /dev/null stuff

2008-09-23 Thread ais523
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 12:47 -0400, comex wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I call for judgement on the statement "If a non-pledge contract has no > > parties, it can be amended by unanimous consent of its parties." > > Trivially FALSE. It is impossib

DIS: Re: BUS: More /dev/null stuff

2008-09-23 Thread comex
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I call for judgement on the statement "If a non-pledge contract has no > parties, it can be amended by unanimous consent of its parties." Trivially FALSE. It is impossible for no parties to give consent.