Index ← 1909 CFJ 1910 1911 → text
==============================  CFJ 1910  ==============================

    One or more partnerships exist.


Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              TRUE



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 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
     earlier ones.

  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.