|
Post by Finnish Gas on Feb 10, 2015 12:51:46 GMT
Bristol Rovers is today one step closer to a prompt outcome in its dispute with Sainsbury’s over the sale of the Memorial Stadium, Bristol. The sale will fund the development of a new stadium at land next to the University of the West of England. The Club issued a claim against Sainsbury’s in December seeking court orders clearing the way for the sale of the stadium. This followed the Club’s successful planning application removing the final planning hurdles to the development of the stadium site by Sainsbury’s. Sainsbury’s is nevertheless refusing to complete the purchase, instead claiming that it is not bound by the planning permission and that this was not obtained in time under the terms of its contract with the Club. The Club sought an order from the court that the claims should be heard as soon as possible, given the importance of the new stadium scheme to the Club, UWE and to North Bristol. At a hearing in the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Roth agreed with the club’s argument and found that the case was sufficiently urgent that it should be the subject of an accelerated trial. The Judge therefore ordered that the claims should be heard no later than 14 May 2015. The Club remains confident that its claim against Sainsbury’s will succeed and therefore anticipates that its stadium development and relocation plan should be back on track by July 2015. No further comment will be made by the club at this time. Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/new-stadium-update-2260093.aspx#6U4MvKF1ozBfCj0h.99
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 12:56:32 GMT
Hang on a minute Sainsbury's didn't include Extended hours in the alpha contract. They waited 13 months before they opted to change their minds. So why did it take 13 months ? And I bet they will blame the council now for delays in planning consent ?
Of course they want to rush it through so much so they took 13 months to drag their feet on extended hours and break the first contract with no mention of extended hours. They kept very quiet right until WE got extended hours granted and then decided to come out the woodwork.
It's just a joke now...
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Feb 10, 2015 12:58:20 GMT
Bristol Rovers is today one step closer to a prompt outcome in its dispute with Sainsbury’s over the sale of the Memorial Stadium, Bristol. The sale will fund the development of a new stadium at land next to the University of the West of England. The Club issued a claim against Sainsbury’s in December seeking court orders clearing the way for the sale of the stadium. This followed the Club’s successful planning application removing the final planning hurdles to the development of the stadium site by Sainsbury’s. Sainsbury’s is nevertheless refusing to complete the purchase, instead claiming that it is not bound by the planning permission and that this was not obtained in time under the terms of its contract with the Club. The Club sought an order from the court that the claims should be heard as soon as possible, given the importance of the new stadium scheme to the Club, UWE and to North Bristol. At a hearing in the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Roth agreed with the club’s argument and found that the case was sufficiently urgent that it should be the subject of an accelerated trial. The Judge therefore ordered that the claims should be heard no later than 14 May 2015. The Club remains confident that its claim against Sainsbury’s will succeed and therefore anticipates that its stadium development and relocation plan should be back on track by July 2015. No further comment will be made by the club at this time. Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/new-stadium-update-2260093.aspx#6U4MvKF1ozBfCj0h.99How do we know when the date of the hearing begins ? do the courts publish the date? anyone know ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:07:39 GMT
Hang on a minute Sainsbury's didn't include Extended hours in the alpha contract. They waited 13 months before they opted to change their minds. So why did it take 13 months ? And I bet they will blame the council now for delays in planning consent ? Of course they want to rush it through so much so they took 13 months to drag their feet on extended hours and break the first contract with no mention of extended hours. They kept very quiet right until WE got extended hours granted and then decided to come out the woodwork. It's just a joke now... www.bristolpost.co.uk/events-unfolded/story-22818770-detail/story.htmlScroll down to July 10th 2013. It looks like the delivery hours may well have formed part of the original contract. Hard to believe, given the resistance from TRASH and Carstairs that Rovers would have agreed for the extended hours to be added later without altering the date that the contract expires?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:08:58 GMT
I am saying Sainsbury's cant have it both ways. If they insisted on Extended hours as a condition. Then it wasn;t in the alpha contract : yes it were rejected but then reversed . Others are saying Sainsbury's just set a 'sale date' regardless of Extended hours and it wasn't meet.. What is it I think you're getting lost in the weeds and confusing what you knew at the time with what was the case, and running a bit fast and loose with dates in retrospect. We haven't seen the contract. It wasn't in the planning submissions and is nothing to do with the planning committee, the Labour Party, TRASH, or anyone except BRFC and Sainsbury's. Commercial confidentiality and all that. All we know of it is what was volunteered at the time and what's been cited court cases, augmented by what is normal and reasonable in these things. Broadly: The contract says that Sainsbury's would buy the land for £x, subject to getting suitable planning permission. Suitability was defined by 'onerous conditions', one of which was delivery hours. Then, they would effectively pay for it, we would carry on playing there for a period while we used the money to build at UWE, after which we'd move out and they'd take possession. I expect both these time periods were limited, so that Sainsbury's weren't tied in to an interminable attempt to get planning permission (or, later, paid for land that they never got to take possession of). That's perfectly understandable and probably entered into willingly by two sides wanting and expecting the deal to go through. To protect the other side (us), best endeavours had to be used to progress the planning permission. The principle was we'll both give it a good go, but if we haven't got suitable planning permission within time t of the signing of this contract, fair enough the deal's off. Both sides thought that was fine and reflected what they wanted to happen. There was always the possibility that, should both be happy, the contract could be amended to lift onerous conditions or extend the time available to keep the thing alive. Since then, certainly by this time last year, Sainsbury's changed their mind and no longer wanted to keep the thing alive. According to the club, Sainnsbury's previously said (no mention of contractual changes though) that they were happy to waive two onerous conditions. The implication was they're still in the contract, though. Last July, the club accused Sainsbury's of dragging this out and not using best endeavours to get this through. The club effectively progressed the resolution of the other onerous condition (the delivery hours), and that wasn't achieved until November. We don't know when the 'planning permission by' date in the contract was. On the aspect of what had to be done by then, there are also the other (maybe never officially removed?) onerous conditions lurking in the undergrowth. Broadly, Sainsbury's probably say suitable planning permission wasn't achieved in the agreed timescale, so the contract says the deal's off; the club probably say it's close enough and any shortfall is down to Sainsbury's not using best endeavours, as mandated by the contract, so it should be honoured. We can't really call it beyond that, especially unless we see the contract in full. I don't think anyone's made up an expiry date after the event.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 10, 2015 13:11:34 GMT
It can't be from day 1 that is impossible. You can only enforce a 'sale date' after PP is agreed and 106 is signed off. Sainsbury's still have the right to question if the 106 conditions are too costly. So we are looking at June 2013 at the earliest. However: Trash started legal action 3 months later which dragged into May 2014. All conditions were reached by the end of the summer 2014 and work was due to start at the UWE in September 2014. Meaning Sainsbury's in theory can exchange contracts with a view to moving in soon after. According to my emails with protest groups Sainsbury's then asked for extended hours around this period as a condition. So you can't have it both ways.. Either Sainsbury's used extended hours hoping it will fail or they didn't want to proceed at that point . Even a CITY fan who I work with in construction is laughing his head off about these mixed msgs by Sainsbury's .. I agree, the spiel from Sainsbury's doesn't Quite fit. That though is no different from what comes out of the club
That Sainsbury's messages don't make sense give me a small bit of hope, but I won't be holding my breath
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 10, 2015 13:18:43 GMT
Hang on a minute Sainsbury's didn't include Extended hours in the alpha contract. They waited 13 months before they opted to change their minds. So why did it take 13 months ? And I bet they will blame the council now for delays in planning consent ? Of course they want to rush it through so much so they took 13 months to drag their feet on extended hours and break the first contract with no mention of extended hours. They kept very quiet right until WE got extended hours granted and then decided to come out the woodwork. It's just a joke now... www.bristolpost.co.uk/events-unfolded/story-22818770-detail/story.htmlScroll down to July 10th 2013. It looks like the delivery hours may well have formed part of the original contract. Hard to believe, given the resistance from TRASH and Carstairs that Rovers would have agreed for the extended hours to be added later without altering the date that the contract expires? I thought the extended hours were what Sainsburys wanted from the get go. However BCC passed the application with hours restricted to 6-11 or whatever it was. Sainsburys/Rovers knew this didn't fit the onerous condition and appealed/dragged their feet
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:20:59 GMT
If Sainsbury's did implement a 'sale date' . Then the judge will decide from the post 106 section agreement ( June 2013) until all legal challenges ended ( June 2014). The extended hours issues is a 'hidden agenda' and is after this period. But how could we sell the land if it was undergoing legal challenges . And if Sainsbury's did want the land : Why did they back out in September 2014 and insist on 'extended hours'. Why didn't they purchase the ground and apply for EH after which is common practice. Also I have been writing to TRASH throughout this period as a Labour supporter backing these plans. The information I have back supports Sainsbury's willingness to proceed. Even the protest groups state " Sainsbury's will only proceed if they get extended hours" in September 2014. The reason Trash didn't appeal the recent EH agreement is because Sainsbury's finally backed out.. So I ask for the 6th time : Why didn't Sainsbury's start work last summer if they are so concerned about starting?. And if they inserted a 'sale date' in less than 10 months after the 106 agreement knowing a legal challenge could happen. How could this be ?. You can't have it both ways ( see above). Clearly when the legal process ended they conviently brought in the extended hours cards. The fact is Sainsbury's very late in the day decide to pull out of 40-40 stores nationally. I don't usually feel positive about Rovers related issues but I think the reports from the council : Trash and UWE will be additional evidence.... I thought that the longer delivery hours were one of the conditions of the original contract?If so then the contract isn't complete without them. If you are aware that it's not possible to get those delivery hours altered before the contract expires then it would be foolish to waste time and money continuing with the process. Hope Higgs doesn't end up paying both our costs and Sainsbury's. I agree, give the case to Judge Rinder, it'll be sorted in 5 minutes and we'll all have a laugh, but he won't pull any punches if Higgs turns up in a creased shirt taken straight out of the packet. i believe they where in the original outline plans but changed before final submission of the first proposal
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:23:05 GMT
I thought that the longer delivery hours were one of the conditions of the original contract?If so then the contract isn't complete without them. If you are aware that it's not possible to get those delivery hours altered before the contract expires then it would be foolish to waste time and money continuing with the process. Hope Higgs doesn't end up paying both our costs and Sainsbury's. I agree, give the case to Judge Rinder, it'll be sorted in 5 minutes and we'll all have a laugh, but he won't pull any punches if Higgs turns up in a creased shirt taken straight out of the packet. i believe they where in the original outline plans but changed before final submission of the first proposal That's not what the club told the High Court last July. I believe you eat too much cheese.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 10, 2015 13:23:54 GMT
Hang on a minute Sainsbury's didn't include Extended hours in the alpha contract. They waited 13 months before they opted to change their minds. So why did it take 13 months ? And I bet they will blame the council now for delays in planning consent ? Of course they want to rush it through so much so they took 13 months to drag their feet on extended hours and break the first contract with no mention of extended hours. They kept very quiet right until WE got extended hours granted and then decided to come out the woodwork. It's just a joke now... What's the alpha contract and how have you seen a copy? But wasn't the EH appeal following on from an origianal application made ages ago? We got the extended hours after we forced Sainsbury's to assist us with the original writ so there's been no coming out of the woodwork by them. As far as the 13 months delay I assume Sainsbuty just kept quiet but why didn't we ask them what their intentions were for over a year? Did somebody at our end take their eye off the ball instead of forcing the issue with Sainsbury's/BCC? I assume that could be the crux of the case, Sainsbury's will say they thought the club had it in hand, we'll say it was down to Sainsbury's to resolve/we didn't feel it was a big issue compared to fighting the JR.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:24:33 GMT
I am saying Sainsbury's cant have it both ways. If they insisted on Extended hours as a condition. Then it wasn;t in the alpha contract : yes it were rejected but then reversed . Others are saying Sainsbury's just set a 'sale date' regardless of Extended hours and it wasn't meet.. What is it I think you're getting lost in the weeds and confusing what you knew at the time with what was the case, and running a bit fast and loose with dates in retrospect. We haven't seen the contract. It wasn't in the planning submissions and is nothing to do with the planning committee, the Labour Party, TRASH, or anyone except BRFC and Sainsbury's. Commercial confidentiality and all that. All we know of it is what was volunteered at the time and what's been cited court cases, augmented by what is normal and reasonable in these things. Broadly: The contract says that Sainsbury's would buy the land for £x, subject to getting suitable planning permission. Suitability was defined by 'onerous conditions', one of which was delivery hours. Then, they would effectively pay for it, we would carry on playing there for a period while we used the money to build at UWE, after which we'd move out and they'd take possession. I expect both these time periods were limited, so that Sainsbury's weren't tied in to an interminable attempt to get planning permission (or, later, paid for land that they never got to take possession of). That's perfectly understandable and probably entered into willingly by two sides wanting and expecting the deal to go through. To protect the other side (us), best endeavours had to be used to progress the planning permission. The principle was we'll both give it a good go, but if we haven't got suitable planning permission within time t of the signing of this contract, fair enough the deal's off. Both sides thought that was fine and reflected what they wanted to happen. There was always the possibility that, should both be happy, the contract could be amended to lift onerous conditions or extend the time available to keep the thing alive. Since then, certainly by this time last year, Sainsbury's changed their mind and no longer wanted to keep the thing alive. According to the club, Sainnsbury's previously said (no mention of contractual changes though) that they were happy to waive two onerous conditions. The implication was they're still in the contract, though. Last July, the club accused Sainsbury's of dragging this out and not using best endeavours to get this through. The club effectively progressed the resolution of the other onerous condition (the delivery hours), and that wasn't achieved until November. We don't know when the 'planning permission by' date in the contract was. On the aspect of what had to be done by then, there are also the other (maybe never officially removed?) onerous conditions lurking in the undergrowth. Broadly, Sainsbury's probably say suitable planning permission wasn't achieved in the agreed timescale, so the contract says the deal's off; the club probably say it's close enough and any shortfall is down to Sainsbury's not using best endeavours, as mandated by the contract, so it should be honoured. We can't really call it beyond that, especially unless we see the contract in full. I don't think anyone's made up an expiry date after the event. you seem to be able to quote chapter and verse from the "Contract" can i have a copy please ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:26:58 GMT
i believe they where in the original outline plans but changed before final submission of the first proposal That's not what the club told the High Court last July. I believe you eat too much cheese. i will go get my copy of the original outline proposals sent for discussion purposes and see what they say....
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 13:27:08 GMT
The first application was agreed in early January 2103 with hours which suited Sainsbury's. They then waited 13 months to apply for extended hours and were refused. We were granted extended hours around November 2014.
So why did Sainsbury's take 13 months to change their minds ? Tell everyone they are still interested before our appeal And then finally pull out after extended hours agreed..
Who's dragging their feet now...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:29:15 GMT
Hang on a minute Sainsbury's didn't include Extended hours in the alpha contract. They waited 13 months before they opted to change their minds. So why did it take 13 months ? And I bet they will blame the council now for delays in planning consent ? Of course they want to rush it through so much so they took 13 months to drag their feet on extended hours and break the first contract with no mention of extended hours. They kept very quiet right until WE got extended hours granted and then decided to come out the woodwork. It's just a joke now... What's the alpha contract and how have you seen a copy? But wasn't the EH appeal following on from an origianal application made ages ago? We got the extended hours after we forced Sainsbury's to assist us with the original writ so there's been no coming out of the woodwork by them. As far as the 13 months delay I assume Sainsbuty just kept quiet but why didn't we ask them what their intentions were for over a year? Did somebody at our end take their eye off the ball instead of forcing the issue with Sainsbury's/BCC? I assume that could be the crux of the case, Sainsbury's will say they thought the club had it in hand, we'll say it was down to Sainsbury's to resolve/we didn't feel it was a big issue compared to fighting the JR. We did. They told the club this time last year, while the JR was still going through, they wanted out and, presumably, that they were deploying the get out clauses. The fact that the club has refused to take 'it's not you, it's us, we're off' for an answer, or that Sainsbury's don't give out press releases on their position (why would they?) don't compromise that.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 13:31:20 GMT
I am saying Sainsbury's cant have it both ways. If they insisted on Extended hours as a condition. Then it wasn;t in the alpha contract : yes it were rejected but then reversed . Others are saying Sainsbury's just set a 'sale date' regardless of Extended hours and it wasn't meet.. What is it I think you're getting lost in the weeds and confusing what you knew at the time with what was the case, and running a bit fast and loose with dates in retrospect. We haven't seen the contract. It wasn't in the planning submissions and is nothing to do with the planning committee, the Labour Party, TRASH, or anyone except BRFC and Sainsbury's. Commercial confidentiality and all that. All we know of it is what was volunteered at the time and what's been cited court cases, augmented by what is normal and reasonable in these things. Broadly: The contract says that Sainsbury's would buy the land for £x, subject to getting suitable planning permission. Suitability was defined by 'onerous conditions', one of which was delivery hours. Then, they would effectively pay for it, we would carry on playing there for a period while we used the money to build at UWE, after which we'd move out and they'd take possession. I expect both these time periods were limited, so that Sainsbury's weren't tied in to an interminable attempt to get planning permission (or, later, paid for land that they never got to take possession of). That's perfectly understandable and probably entered into willingly by two sides wanting and expecting the deal to go through. To protect the other side (us), best endeavours had to be used to progress the planning permission. The principle was we'll both give it a good go, but if we haven't got suitable planning permission within time t of the signing of this contract, fair enough the deal's off. Both sides thought that was fine and reflected what they wanted to happen. There was always the possibility that, should both be happy, the contract could be amended to lift onerous conditions or extend the time available to keep the thing alive. Since then, certainly by this time last year, Sainsbury's changed their mind and no longer wanted to keep the thing alive. According to the club, Sainnsbury's previously said (no mention of contractual changes though) that they were happy to waive two onerous conditions. The implication was they're still in the contract, though. Last July, the club accused Sainsbury's of dragging this out and not using best endeavours to get this through. The club effectively progressed the resolution of the other onerous condition (the delivery hours), and that wasn't achieved until November. We don't know when the 'planning permission by' date in the contract was. On the aspect of what had to be done by then, there are also the other (maybe never officially removed?) onerous conditions lurking in the undergrowth. Broadly, Sainsbury's probably say suitable planning permission wasn't achieved in the agreed timescale, so the contract says the deal's off; the club probably say it's close enough and any shortfall is down to Sainsbury's not using best endeavours, as mandated by the contract, so it should be honoured. We can't really call it beyond that, especially unless we see the contract in full. I don't think anyone's made up an expiry date after the event.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 13:32:03 GMT
I am saying Sainsbury's cant have it both ways. If they insisted on Extended hours as a condition. Then it wasn;t in the alpha contract : yes it were rejected but then reversed . Others are saying Sainsbury's just set a 'sale date' regardless of Extended hours and it wasn't meet.. What is it I think you're getting lost in the weeds and confusing what you knew at the time with what was the case, and running a bit fast and loose with dates in retrospect. We haven't seen the contract. It wasn't in the planning submissions and is nothing to do with the planning committee, the Labour Party, TRASH, or anyone except BRFC and Sainsbury's. Commercial confidentiality and all that. All we know of it is what was volunteered at the time and what's been cited court cases, augmented by what is normal and reasonable in these things. Broadly: The contract says that Sainsbury's would buy the land for £x, subject to getting suitable planning permission. Suitability was defined by 'onerous conditions', one of which was delivery hours. Then, they would effectively pay for it, we would carry on playing there for a period while we used the money to build at UWE, after which we'd move out and they'd take possession. I expect both these time periods were limited, so that Sainsbury's weren't tied in to an interminable attempt to get planning permission (or, later, paid for land that they never got to take possession of). That's perfectly understandable and probably entered into willingly by two sides wanting and expecting the deal to go through. To protect the other side (us), best endeavours had to be used to progress the planning permission. The principle was we'll both give it a good go, but if we haven't got suitable planning permission within time t of the signing of this contract, fair enough the deal's off. Both sides thought that was fine and reflected what they wanted to happen. There was always the possibility that, should both be happy, the contract could be amended to lift onerous conditions or extend the time available to keep the thing alive. Since then, certainly by this time last year, Sainsbury's changed their mind and no longer wanted to keep the thing alive. According to the club, Sainnsbury's previously said (no mention of contractual changes though) that they were happy to waive two onerous conditions. The implication was they're still in the contract, though. Last July, the club accused Sainsbury's of dragging this out and not using best endeavours to get this through. The club effectively progressed the resolution of the other onerous condition (the delivery hours), and that wasn't achieved until November. We don't know when the 'planning permission by' date in the contract was. On the aspect of what had to be done by then, there are also the other (maybe never officially removed?) onerous conditions lurking in the undergrowth. Broadly, Sainsbury's probably say suitable planning permission wasn't achieved in the agreed timescale, so the contract says the deal's off; the club probably say it's close enough and any shortfall is down to Sainsbury's not using best endeavours, as mandated by the contract, so it should be honoured. We can't really call it beyond that, especially unless we see the contract in full. I don't think anyone's made up an expiry date after the event.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 13:32:40 GMT
He's an expert.....( see above)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:36:22 GMT
The first application was agreed in early January 2103 with hours which suited Sainsbury's. They then waited 13 months to apply for extended hours and were refused. We were granted extended hours around November 2014. So why did Sainsbury's take 13 months to change their minds ? Tell everyone they are still interested before our appeal And then finally pull out after extended hours agreed.. Who's dragging their feet now... As stated several times above, the longer delivery hours were one of three 'store onerous conditions' that formed part of the original contract. Henbury seems to be saying that he has documents from Sainsbury's that demonstrate that they were happy to procede with the project subject to the shorter hours forming part of the planning conditions. Look forward to seeing that. If that's the case I'm slightly confused about why Rovers submitted the application for extended hours, why would they if all of the contract conditions were already met?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:38:08 GMT
The first application was agreed in early January 2103 with hours which suited Sainsbury's. They then waited 13 months to apply for extended hours and were refused. We were granted extended hours around November 2014. So why did Sainsbury's take 13 months to change their minds ? Tell everyone they are still interested before our appeal And then finally pull out after extended hours agreed.. Who's dragging their feet now... As stated several times above, the longer delivery hours were one of three 'store onerous conditions' that formed part of the original contract. Henbury seems to be saying that he has documents from Sainsbury's that demonstrate that they were happy to procede with the project subject to the shorter hours forming part of the planning conditions. Look forward to seeing that. If that's the case I'm slightly confused about why Rovers submitted the application for extended hours, why would they if all of the contract conditions were already met? Not from Sainsbury
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:42:23 GMT
As stated several times above, the longer delivery hours were one of three 'store onerous conditions' that formed part of the original contract. Henbury seems to be saying that he has documents from Sainsbury's that demonstrate that they were happy to procede with the project subject to the shorter hours forming part of the planning conditions. Look forward to seeing that. If that's the case I'm slightly confused about why Rovers submitted the application for extended hours, why would they if all of the contract conditions were already met? Not from Sainsbury Sorry, trying hard to understand what's happening here. Can you explain (in simple terms) what evidence there is to support a suggestion that Sainsbury's had agreed that they would complete the contract with the shorter delivery hours? Edit. I think I can see what you are saying, So, you think that Sainsbury's proceeded with the application and were willing, at that point in time, to waive contract conditions and complete the deal in the knowledge that BCC were not minded to approve the longer delivery hours? If that's the case then they could be in a spot of trouble.
|
|