| Craig Daniel on Sun, 1 Nov 2009 22:07:06 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE) |
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Gratuitous arguments: >> >> Since B's rules neither define nor regulate contracts, Walker >> certainly may, as an unregulated action, agree to contracts; this is >> eir R1 right. Since the rules place no significance on contracts, eir >> assertion should be taken to have its ordinary language meaning, that >> is, e's agreeing a be bound by a contract under the laws in eir own >> jurisdiction. Since the law in the UK requires government sanctioning >> for a document to define a corporation, and since it seems reasonably >> unlikely that Walker has such government sanctioning in this case, >> Walker hasn't created a person either in the ordinary language sense >> or in the legal sense. >> > > Question: is Walker in the UK? > > Because, if so, I am inclined to accept the above gratuitous arguments. > Having reviewed information about relevant bits of US law, I am aware that the contract in question isn't a corporation here either, and so I am ready to render judgement on the matter. Give me a bit to write up my reasoning for the record. - teucer _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss