I wrote: > I initiate an inquiry case on the following statements, disqualifying > Quazie (who pointed this out to me via IM): > > If a partner acts on behalf of a partnership to cast a vote, > that vote is still cast by that partner, and is thus subject > to that partner's voting limit. > > If a partner acts on behalf of a partnership to transfer an > asset, it is still the partner's asset that is transferred > (provided that e has such an asset, and that the transfer is > otherwise POSSIBLE). > > Caller's arguments: > > These are possible reductio ad absurdum examples in favor of > overturning the precedent of CFJs 2050 and 2090. > > Note the judgement of CFJ 1895, which draws a distinction between > "act on behalf of" (contracts) and "act as if e held a particular > office/position" (deputisation).
I retract any inquiry cases initiated by the above. I initiate two inquiry cases on the statements noted above, with the arguments noted above.
