On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe the best way to ensure partnerships live up to obligations may > be to allow equity to work on claims: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proto: Partnership equity, power-2 > > Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending the following paragraph: > > An Equity Case claiming that a specified partnership has failed to > devolve a specific legal obligation onto a subset of its parties > CAN be initiated by any Player by announcement. The case shall be > considered to be an Equity Case governing the partnership. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If the original contract envisioned not devolving the obligation well onto the parties (quite likely, in fact), then I don't see what resolution the equity case could reasonably provide beyond finding that it's not a partnership, in which case the case couldn't have been initiated in the first place. A better approach might be to have rule-imposed devolution on contracts which have officially declared themselves to be partnerships (rather than defining partnerships based on their devolution) and provide a means to resolve failed devolution through equity with: (a) standing -- it needs to be something weaker than "is a party for the purposes of the case", because the initiator should not be subject to random obligations the contract imposes on its members or random rewards in the equity judgment. It, however, needs to be strong enough that the initiator's actual interest in equity is represented; and (b) definition of equity -- "equity" for partnerships needs to be defined to explicitly include this rule-imposed requirement on the contract. One approach might be to imagine that such equity cases really concern an imaginary pledge of the like "Members of the partnership SHALL ensure that the partnership devolves its obligations onto its parties." [Except we really need a better definition of "devolve" here and there is a huge issue of party-changing scams.] Doing this really needs a fix for R101 issues with equity cases -- especially since such a pseudo-contract may not reasonably be considered an amendment of the original partnership contract. -woggle
