I think it's okay, given that that clause has an explicit "To the extent
specified by the Rules".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:00 AM, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules,
contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that
meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any actions
that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract.
I put that "Any actions that do not meet these criteria are not
regulated by the contract." there to explicitly invoke the override
clause in the new Rule 2125. By the definition of "regulated", a
contract could still forbid/require/etc. actions that it defines, even
if it CANNOT define those actions. This clause prevents that.
Oh, I see. I missed that "other actions" does not include "actions
that are defined in other binding entities". This still seems a
little questionable, since "define or regulate" makes it sound like
contracts can regulate actions which they don't define (and which are
also not defined in other binding entities). At least, I don't think
there's any scenario where it would make sense for a contract to do
that.
