On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote: > I'm not sure if it is either, but if you go the pragmatic route (which > is a good idea given the extreme annoyance of finding something was > never a person, which likely distorts the jurisprudence on devolving > obligations in the first place),
We really don't know whether the *current* system is platonic or pragmatic. We had a couple cases where it was "obvious" that the text of a contract didn't devolve responsibilities (and therefore wasn't). We haven't had a case where a partnership text generally claimed to devolve responsibility, but then failed to and was brought to court for it. The only instances involving the AFO were subject to "out-of-court" settlements before a precedent was set. So it's not clear to me (under the current rules) whether the "it was never a partnership" argument would win over the "it claims to be a partnership, so we can impose the following equity settlement". At the moment, a main obstacle in the latter course is just Standing. -Goethe
