One example where it doesn’t matter. The motion directed an single action in time. So it required a one-time thing to do and then was void by definition. It’s like if you pass a motion “mhps has to eat a banana” and once you ate the banana it is fine, you don’t need to recover it if someone nullifies the former motion later on.
But yes, before putting this up for voting I would also suggest to make a paragraph with exceptions or at least a more precise specification on how the construct will be dissolved. E.g. in the case of FLOT it has to be clear what happens to the funds etc.
A clause like this actually should have been part of any contract motion that passed such that there is no confusion right now. In fact I would suggest, that in future, a contract motion should always be posted together with the corresponding firing motion, i.e. if I apply as janitor at Nu then I will provide you with two motions:
- motion: creon will be Nu’s janitor for 6NBT per hour
- motion: hereby creon will be released from his duties as Nu janitor. The payment up to the day where this motion passed will be transferred to creon.
such that there will never be doubt on what happens in case 2 and also that nobody has to be “that guy” who proposes a motion to fire somebody.