Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Perhaps the new PP is an entirely new, unregistered person, and the old
>PP has "died".
I believe it has. In fact, assuming the minimal case that there has been
exactly one new partner, there have been three different partnerships
which the PP agreement called "the Pineapple P
Zefram wrote:
> I'm not convinced that a partnership is really capable of changing
> membership.
Ah now, this is an interesting point. Is a partnership the same "person"
if its underlying persons change? Since Annabel demonstrated that persons
in the Agoran sense are definitely conditioned on
Ed Murphy wrote:
>But the things that the natural persons are obligated to do are
>different.
A single natural person can be obliged to do several different things
by different contracts. That doesn't make em more than one person.
>Five players create and register a Pineapple-type partnership (w
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Human Point Two and I have made a R1742 binding agreement, the text of
which is:
I believe this doesn't work. Obligations on HP3 are translated, by
that agreement, into obligations on HP2 and Murphy, and then by HP2's
agreement into obligations on Quazie and Mu
Michael Slone wrote:
On 5/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Human Point Two and I have made a R1742 binding agreement, the text of
which is:
1. Did Quazie agree to let Human Point Two let Human Point Three make
an agreement with you?
2. And people said we didn't need Senators.
Michael Slone wrote:
On 5/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Human Point Two and I have made a R1742 binding agreement, the text of
which is:
1. Did Quazie agree to let Human Point Two let Human Point Three make
an agreement with you?
2. And people said we didn't need Senators.
6 matches
Mail list logo
