Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669 
|
Post by Thatslife on Jun 2, 2015 12:13:54 GMT
Be careful now, i am the "Official" Sainsbury mole and any information or Misinformation i can provide will be sent back to the head offices of Sainsbury/TRASH and the librarian at Bristol University  I damn well knew it you was all along   In English would be better:) |
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jun 2, 2015 12:45:00 GMT
High Court agenda for tomorrow is up. No Rovers vs Sainsbury's so won't be until Thursday at the earliest
|
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jun 2, 2015 14:54:46 GMT
I damn well knew it you was all along In English would be better:) I think you'll find it was a direct translation from the original welsh  |
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jun 2, 2015 15:19:25 GMT
Sorry using the we won on points everday spiel might be an honest opinion, however it wont bloody matter if the law is on Sainsbury's side will it? Wont be much of an excuse I wouod rather the club said very little until the decision outside of saying we have stated our case and hope for a positive outcome Regardless of the outcome, it seems we had/have a very good case considering the judge has had to read up further before a decision. It's also clear to see who put the spanner in the works when it came to delays and court actions. NH is literally a whisker away from securing our long term future and for one, I am glad that he has pursued this stadium to the bitter end. Just hope the judge sides with morality and not the bullies. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Jun 2, 2015 15:26:25 GMT
Sorry using the we won on points everday spiel might be an honest opinion, however it wont bloody matter if the law is on Sainsbury's side will it? Wont be much of an excuse I wouod rather the club said very little until the decision outside of saying we have stated our case and hope for a positive outcome Regardless of the outcome, it seems we had/have a very good case considering the judge has had to read up further before a decision. It's also clear to see who put the spanner in the works when it came to delays and court actions. NH is literally a whisker away from securing our long term future and for one, I am glad that he has pursued this stadium to the bitter end. Just hope the judge sides with morality and not the bullies. If it's only based on legality and not morality, that's what the judge will rule on. We have to prove Sainsbury's deliberately caused the delays and breach of contract - and hopefully have done so. The question then is does that legally (not morally) prove that Sainsbury's are in breach of contract and have to pay the full amount. I'm hoping it does because if the judgement is that they were morally but not legally wrong, we're stuffed. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Jun 2, 2015 15:26:39 GMT
Sorry using the we won on points everday spiel might be an honest opinion, however it wont bloody matter if the law is on Sainsbury's side will it? Wont be much of an excuse I wouod rather the club said very little until the decision outside of saying we have stated our case and hope for a positive outcome Regardless of the outcome, it seems we had/have a very good case considering the judge has had to read up further before a decision. It's also clear to see who put the spanner in the works when it came to delays and court actions. NH is literally a whisker away from securing our long term future and for one, I am glad that he has pursued this stadium to the bitter end. Just hope the judge sides with morality and not the bullies. Duplicate post - sorry about that! |
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Jun 2, 2015 15:28:17 GMT
Sorry using the we won on points everday spiel might be an honest opinion, however it wont bloody matter if the law is on Sainsbury's side will it? Wont be much of an excuse I wouod rather the club said very little until the decision outside of saying we have stated our case and hope for a positive outcome Regardless of the outcome, it seems we had/have a very good case considering the judge has had to read up further before a decision. It's also clear to see who put the spanner in the works when it came to delays and court actions. NH is literally a whisker away from securing our long term future and for one, I am glad that he has pursued this stadium to the bitter end. Just hope the judge sides with morality and not the bullies. Well said.  |
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jun 2, 2015 15:29:23 GMT
Regardless of the outcome, it seems we had/have a very good case considering the judge has had to read up further before a decision. It's also clear to see who put the spanner in the works when it came to delays and court actions. NH is literally a whisker away from securing our long term future and for one, I am glad that he has pursued this stadium to the bitter end. Just hope the judge sides with morality and not the bullies. If it's only based on legality and not morality, that's what the judge will rule on. We have to prove Sainsbury's deliberately caused the delays and breach of contract - and hopefully have done so. The question then is does that legally (not morally) prove that Sainsbury's are in breach of contract and have to pay the full amount. I'm hoping it does because if the judgement is that they were morally but not legally wrong, we're stuffed. You would hope that morality and legality go hand in hand. I'm not naive enough to think that they do but if this was a moral argument, we wouldn't be winning on points, instead celebrating a first round knockout! |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 2, 2015 15:37:35 GMT
Let’s just hope it isn’t a bitter end
As I said elsewhere, win or lose, there is no point the club trying to play the bitter and hard done by card. We will have to get on with whatever the challenge ahead will be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2015 15:40:06 GMT
Let’s just hope it isn’t a bitter end As I said elsewhere, win or lose, there is no point the club trying to play the bitter and hard done by card. We will have to get on with whatever the challenge ahead will be. A superb summary. |
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Jun 2, 2015 15:49:52 GMT
I can't see morality coming in to this. It's a legal case to be settled by whatever the contract actually says, contract law and how the judge decides on the evidence before her. What worries me is that judges (especially those on the way up) don't want to have an appeal lodged against them - a black mark on their career prospects. So the inevitable tendency is, in a difficult area, to go with the side that's most likely to appeal i.e. Sainsbury's. Let's hope our case is so overwheming she can't do that but I'm not sure it is. Nail biting time!
|
|
|
|
Post by beechesgas on Jun 2, 2015 18:14:17 GMT
I can't see morality coming in to this. It's a legal case to be settled by whatever the contract actually says, contract law and how the judge decides on the evidence before her. What worries me is that judges (especially those on the way up) don't want to have an appeal lodged against them - a black mark on their career prospects. So the inevitable tendency is, in a difficult area, to go with the side that's most likely to appeal i.e. Sainsbury's. Let's hope our case is so overwheming she can't do that but I'm not sure it is. Nail biting time! The thing is, our QC, and therefore our legal case, spent a lengthy time pushing 'best endeavours' and 'good faith' - those terms ain't that far from "morality" really. It was the Sainsbury's QC who tried to drive a coach & horses through that saying, in effect bo***cks, such contractual terms are vague and outdated and should, in the modern day, be explicitly required in any contract - Rovers case is that they were implied. The contractual ability to walk away I fear is pretty clear and Sainsbury's were entitled to walk. But, did we prove that the precise conditions that allowed them to walk away were orchestrated and created by Sainsbury's themselves, acting in bad faith and not making any endeavour to fulfil the contract? I was in court and I think some of our arguments were good although, as I said, their QC got up and in just 20mins basically said bo***cks - the contract didn't (explicitly) require Sainsbury's to act in such a way!!! Extremely arrogant big company approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 2, 2015 18:52:45 GMT
The fact the Judge hasn't announced her Judgement as soon as the court break was over suggests this is not a clear cut case which gives us hope she may find in our favour, although it clearly knocks on the head once and for all the suggestion that the contract was "watertight"!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2015 19:22:05 GMT
The fact the Judge hasn't announced her Judgement as soon as the court break was over suggests this is not a clear cut case which gives us hope she may find in our favour, although it clearly knocks on the head once and for all the suggestion that the contract was "watertight"! If Rovers win then Higgs will claim that the contract was watertight all along. I wouldn't read too much into it taking a while to come to a decision, it's a £30,000,000 (plus costs) decision, she will be taking advice. |
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Jun 2, 2015 19:24:43 GMT
It is true that in English law there is currently NO recognition of good faith unlike many other countries like USA Germany France and Australia which do . However: as I said before there is an expectation to make effort and give recordings and evidence to back things up in all contracts. It is common to find wordings like ' expectations to perform particular obligations'. 'duties to co-operate in the performance of contracts'. So on the face of it a company may get away without acting in 'good faith' to an employer ( childcare religious carer role ). But did they take all reasonable steps in co-operating and finding an alternative way forward ?.
This case is very complex and the judge needs time to look beyond hidden agenda's from both parties. We could assume one area of debate was around EH . One party is saying 'they exhausted all area's and need not do anymore'. Another party are saying 'there were expectations to take every effort '. So who is right ? What about if the contract neither gave 100% advantage to Sainsbury's or 100% advantage to BRFC .
This is were it get;s grey and complex . Maybe the role of the judge would be to look at independent evidence linked to the contract. What is Bristol City council planning saying about this ? or elected councilors ? or other interested parties ?.
I don't know but on the face of it . It looks far from black and white. Would Sainsbury's shake hands on the current retail price at a knocked down price to opt out ?. Would our legal team accept this on the grounds it may be a complicated contract ?. Could this be the easy route out ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Briggs on Jun 3, 2015 6:52:46 GMT
The fact the Judge hasn't announced her Judgement as soon as the court break was over suggests this is not a clear cut case which gives us hope she may find in our favour, although it clearly knocks on the head once and for all the suggestion that the contract was "watertight"! If Rovers win then Higgs will claim that the contract was watertight all along. I wouldn't read too much into it taking a while to come to a decision, it's a £30,000,000 (plus costs) decision, she will be taking advice. A woman taking advice? That`s a new one on me. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 3, 2015 7:20:12 GMT
It is true that in English law there is currently NO recognition of good faith unlike many other countries like USA Germany France and Australia which do . However: as I said before there is an expectation to make effort and give recordings and evidence to back things up in all contracts. It is common to find wordings like ' expectations to perform particular obligations'. 'duties to co-operate in the performance of contracts'. So on the face of it a company may get away without acting in 'good faith' to an employer ( childcare religious carer role ). But did they take all reasonable steps in co-operating and finding an alternative way forward ?. This case is very complex and the judge needs time to look beyond hidden agenda's from both parties. We could assume one area of debate was around EH . One party is saying 'they exhausted all area's and need not do anymore'. Another party are saying 'there were expectations to take every effort '. So who is right ? What about if the contract neither gave 100% advantage to Sainsbury's or 100% advantage to BRFC . This is were it get;s grey and complex . Maybe the role of the judge would be to look at independent evidence linked to the contract. What is Bristol City council planning saying about this ? or elected councilors ? or other interested parties ?. I don't know but on the face of it . It looks far from black and white. Would Sainsbury's shake hands on the current retail price at a knocked down price to opt out ?. Would our legal team accept this on the grounds it may be a complicated contract ?. Could this be the easy route out ? You certainly sound knowledgeable, but I am not prepared to take what you say seriously due to your appalling use of punctuation. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 7:24:26 GMT
It is true that in English law there is currently NO recognition of good faith unlike many other countries like USA Germany France and Australia which do . However: as I said before there is an expectation to make effort and give recordings and evidence to back things up in all contracts. It is common to find wordings like ' expectations to perform particular obligations'. 'duties to co-operate in the performance of contracts'. So on the face of it a company may get away without acting in 'good faith' to an employer ( childcare religious carer role ). But did they take all reasonable steps in co-operating and finding an alternative way forward ?. This case is very complex and the judge needs time to look beyond hidden agenda's from both parties. We could assume one area of debate was around EH . One party is saying 'they exhausted all area's and need not do anymore'. Another party are saying 'there were expectations to take every effort '. So who is right ? What about if the contract neither gave 100% advantage to Sainsbury's or 100% advantage to BRFC . This is were it get;s grey and complex . Maybe the role of the judge would be to look at independent evidence linked to the contract. What is Bristol City council planning saying about this ? or elected councilors ? or other interested parties ?. I don't know but on the face of it . It looks far from black and white. Would Sainsbury's shake hands on the current retail price at a knocked down price to opt out ?. Would our legal team accept this on the grounds it may be a complicated contract ?. Could this be the easy route out ? You certainly sound knowledgeable, but I am not prepared to take what you say seriously due to your appalling use of punctuation.  You got to love this forum for posts like that |
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Jun 3, 2015 7:39:31 GMT
You certainly sound knowledgeable, but I am not prepared to take what you say seriously due to your appalling use of punctuation. You got to love this forum for posts like that |
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Jun 3, 2015 7:44:05 GMT
You got to love this forum for posts like that So unless we are all educated as good as you. Our views are not valid. |
|
You got to love this forum for posts like that