On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote: >>>> It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors >>>> is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them >>>> is the contract, then its existence depends on the contract. >>> >>> And my dependents would survive without me but they *legally* depend >>> on me. It's a legal distinction. >> >> No, their *existence* does not depend on you, legally or otherwise. > > Not entirely true. For minors, their *legal* existence (ability to > enter a contract for example) depends on a guardian of some type, if > one disappears the court appoints another. -G.
Well.... Okay. I don't see how that has to do with this situation, but I have a question. Suppose I had a way to make a contract-defined entity into a rule (R105 generally forbids this, rules have to be created from scratch). In your view, would its existence then cease to depend on the contract? Would there be any way to avoid it? -- -c.
