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

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.

 - teucer
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss