============================== CFJ 1910 ==============================
One or more partnerships exist.
Called by root: 10 Mar 2008 22:04:32 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 11 Mar 2008 20:04:30 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy: 15 Mar 2008 03:47:44 GMT
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
This judgement hinges on the second paragraph of Rule 2166, whose
clauses are numbered below for ease of reference:
1) Each asset has exactly one owner.
2) If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank.
3) If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to
an entity outside that class,
4) and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that class.
The argument for the statement's falsehood is that the contract defining
partnerships as assets triggered 2), then 4). This raises three issues:
a) Does 3) apply?
b) If so, does 3) take precedence over 1) and 2)?
c) If so, does anything take precedence over 3)?
a) "gained by" does not apply; "gain" is explicitly defined (by the
fourth paragraph of Rule 2166) as applying only to newly created
assets. "transferred to" is ambiguous; it is not explicitly
defined, and a quick check of dictionary.com turns up consistent
evidence that a transfer must have a source as well as a
destination; but the state of non-ownership can be interpreted as
a source (consider the analogy of a boat that travels from
international waters to a Portuguese harbor).
b) Also ambiguous. 3) conflicts with 1) and 2), but there are no
general rules for resolving conflicts within a rule. The most
unambiguous guideline is that unopposed claims of precedence
succeed, but none of the clauses claims precedence. A more
ambiguous guideline is that later clauses take precedence over
c) No. No other rule attempts to take precedence over 3). 4) does
not attempt to take precedence over 3), either; it simply states
what happens if something does take precedence over 3).
In the interest of preserving the intent of the rule (and I should
know, I wrote it), I interpret that 3) does apply, and does take
precedence over 1) and 2). Accordingly, I judge TRUE.