Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I interpreted it as equivalent to a given action.
Still not specifying which action.
Nor does it need to. Okay, here's a third re-phrasing which is
hopefully unambiguous:
(original)
If an executee is prohibiting from performing an
action, each of its
Ed Murphy wrote:
If an executee is prohibiting from performing an
action, each of its executors is prohibited from performing the
action on behalf of that executee.
That's not the sentence I have trouble with. I was talking about
Holding executorship of another entity does not in itself
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If an executee is prohibiting from performing an
action, each of its executors is prohibited from performing the
action on behalf of that executee.
That's not the sentence I have trouble with. I was talking about
Holding executorship of another entity
On 5/9/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant executorship of the Pineapple Partnership to Goethe and Zefram.
Grant executorship of Human Point Two to Murphy and Quazie.
Are proposals empowered to change executorship?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
--
Michael Slone wrote:
but an executor with the power to
perform an action
The power to perform what action?
Executorship of an entity that is not a natural person can be
granted or revoked by the action of a proposal with power as
great as
Michael Slone wrote:
*An* action, just as I wrote.
Any action? This is such a strange reading that I'm still not convinced
I've understood you correctly. You're placing a restriction on which
executors have the power to perform actions on behalf of their executees.
The restriction is that they
Zefram wrote:
Michael Slone wrote:
*An* action, just as I wrote.
Any action? This is such a strange reading that I'm still not convinced
I've understood you correctly. You're placing a restriction on which
executors have the power to perform actions on behalf of their executees.
The
7 matches
Mail list logo
