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.
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. It is
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 amended by
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 of
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 judgement on the
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 consent
6 matches
Mail list logo
