ehird wrote: > On 23 Oct 2008, at 19:54, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I'm treating this as ineffective until/unless you produce some >> convincing evidence that such a contract exists and has Sgeo and >> you as parties. > > Well, Sgeo is a party even if e doesn't know it. > > You happen to be a party too, I believe you are obligated to treat it > as effective.
Until/unless you provide a convincing argument that you've successfully circumvented Rule 101 (iii) and (iv), I intend to give this alleged contract precisely the amount of attention it deserves, namely none whatsoever.
