Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: A less drastic fix... or a kludge?

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> {{{
>> Amend Rule 4E79 by replacing
>> {
>> Officer. Officers of a Corporation
>> }
>> with
>> {
>> Legal Entity bound to them as an Officer; they may optionally define
>> other Officers, who need not be so bound.  The Officers of a
>> Corporation who are bound to its Articles of Incorporation
>> }
>> }}}
>
> This would still allow non-parties to be obligated to make the
> corporation fulfill its obligations.  In particular, CPA could
> be trivially reworded so that it was not obligated to do anything
> with macks/socks already owned by Pirates.

More context:

These Articles must, at a minimum, give the Corporation a name and
define at least one Officer. Officers of a Corporation shall
collectively ensure...

The proposal would limit the obligation on Officers to Officers who
are bound to the AoI.  Or am I missing something?
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss