Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Billy Pilgrim wrote:
>
> > That said, unless we get back to Contracts that hold assets (or even then
> if
> > they can easily transfer them to Players),
>
> Why is that relevant?  Does this pertain to clauses like "the members
> are the persons who own one or more X"?
>

I meant this in the context of, say, 9 players deciding to pass a proposal
that would change the text of a contract that binds 3 other players (to
force them into all sorts of unpleasant things). Not that that ever really
happens, just like I've never seen a proposal saying something like "teucer
may never have points" pass. Just bad sportsmanship.

But in the above scenario, if it's merely a contract that obliges the 3
players to do certain things, they can easily drop out, dissolve the
contract, and start it anew in the next nweek. If the Contract is something
like Articles of Incorporation, and thus can hold assets or define an entity
that holds assets, the parties cannot simply drop out and re-form, because
then they lose the assets held by the contract entity. The contract might be
able to transfer assets to the players, thus allowing this strategy, but I
remember a while back Socks were stuck inside non-sock corps once bought.
Corps did not have the right to give socks.

Anyway, that's all very hypothetical, and I doubt anything of that nature
would really happen.

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