On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: ehrid devolves its obligations onto > at least two people. > > Gratuitous arguments: > > It could be that it can devolve obligations without the person it > devolves to being able to > uphold these obligations. Then it's trivially TRUE, and ehrid is still a > player. > > If not, then Ivan Hope can still uphold them by acting through me. > Gratuitous Argument:
The ehrid contract does not permit Ivan Hope to take any actions to uphold its obligations, therefore it does not devolve those responsibilities onto two or more persons. Although Ivan Hope is permitted to act on ehirds behalf, this is not due to the ehrid contract but instead due to a separate pledge which has no relation to the original contract. BobTHJ
