Re: [s-d] [s-b] Let's try that again while we still can

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> Regardless, the Rule says an officer "can" take action, and since I'm
>> not a party to that contract, nyah-nyah you can't make me.
>>
>> So I guess I was wrong in one part below, unbound officers have zero
>> obligation even if the corporation is capable of the action.
>>     
>
> A contract cannot bind players who do not agree to be bound by it,
> according to rule 4E70. The rule that compels officers of a
> corporation to act as the corporation must is rule 4E79. Neither rule
> has a specified power, so they must both have the default value of
> 1/2. Neither claims precedence over the other, so the lower number
> wins. Since 70 is less than 79 even though the zero is further to the
> right on my keyboard, I believe that makes consultation 137 false, and
> I will claim as inconsistent (with rule 4E75) any ruling to the
> contrary.
>   


Being bound by a Contract's text and being obligated to take actions on 
behalf of a Corporation are two different things.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss