On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote: >>> Rule 2169 plainly says that "the judgement is in effect as a binding >>> agreement between the parties [of the original contract].". >> >> But R2145, which states that responsibilities devolve to members, clearly >> has precedence over R2169. > > No, it says that a contract whose responsibilities devolve to members > is a partnership. That's a big difference: if they don't devolve, > then Rule 2145 doesn't take precedence over anything to force them to > (why should it?), it just says that the contract in question is not a > partnership.
Ah, I see. But the statement of the CFJ is about a "partnership", so it's only got true/false value for something that is positively a partnership. As such, maybe the whole thing is a tautology: if the statement isn't true for contract X alleged-to-be-a-partnership, then contract X isn't a partnership, but since the statement assumes contract X is a partnership, the whole thing is trivially true. (This is the problem with doing this hypothetically instead of with a specific contract--unless this comes up again in a specific case I'll agree with you and the rest of your post is that the best is *some* kind of legislative fix). -Goethe
