Proto-Proposal: Contract Changes, take two
(AI = 1.5, please)
[Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
you support this revision?]
Amend Rule 1742 (Contracts) by replacing this text:
A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to
it
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
you support this revision?]
What's the difference from the previous version? I voted against the
last one because I generally dislike cleaning proposals
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
you support this revision?]
What's the difference from the
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
you support this revision?]
What's the difference from the previous version?
Mainly any of these in both parts of the revised R2198.
I
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it seems to me that this should just read
by a party without objection, if the contract is a pledge.
Plus the ugly verbiage about blocking changes, of course.
-root
5 matches
Mail list logo