|
Post by PessimistGas on May 18, 2015 16:27:37 GMT
"The obligation to use reasonable endeavours requires you to go on using endeavours until the point is reached when all reasonable endeavours have been exhausted. You would simply be repeating yourself to go through the same matters again
Does the contract actually state "reasonable endeavours"? If so then not only have Sainsbury not met their contractual obligations but then openly admit it.
They must have something else up the sleeve surely?
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on May 18, 2015 16:45:51 GMT
"The obligation to use reasonable endeavours requires you to go on using endeavours until the point is reached when all reasonable endeavours have been exhausted. You would simply be repeating yourself to go through the same matters again Does the contract actually state "reasonable endeavours"? If so then not only have Sainsbury not met their contractual obligations but then openly admit it. They must have something else up the sleeve surely?Let's hope not.
|
|
|
Post by gashead01 on May 18, 2015 17:15:50 GMT
nicked from Gaschat
George Ferguson tweeting, assume he's there (@georgefergusonx) 18/05/2015 13:40 #Sainsburys playing fast and loose with facts in attempt to renege on contract with #Bristol #Rovers @official_BRFC pic.twitter.com/kvWhffnyFD What's that clown doing there Bristol city council has never actively supported us in anything suppose he's trying to jump on the band wagon now we are a league club again sat next to him at Wembley yesterday.... and he had his blue trousers on!!!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 18, 2015 17:22:58 GMT
I still don't why our barrister doesn't ask for proof Sainsbury's needed the extended delivery hours when every other store in Bristol operates without them, plus haven't Sainsbury's just announced they are laying off all the night workers/shelf stockers has they can't afford to pay them?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 19:15:43 GMT
"The court heard that, after Bristol City Council refused the shopping chain's application to change restrictions on its delivery times, the store could not go ahead."
But this is where we can hit them hard. Their application to change times was very poor. They missed lots of info and didnt explain how they will deal with issues that will arrive if hours were extended. It was a poor application which the Council had no choice but to refuse it. It was like the application was done poor on purpose. This is why the appeal was successful as it was all done properly and was done properly as Rovers did the work and wanted it to suceed. If Sainsburys did it right like how Rovers did it then it wouldnt have been rejected. But as they wanted out, they made sure their application was poor and used that as an excuse as a way out.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 18, 2015 19:50:58 GMT
I still don't why our barrister doesn't ask for proof Sainsbury's needed the extended delivery hours when every other store in Bristol operates without them, plus haven't Sainsbury's just announced they are laying off all the night workers/shelf stockers has they can't afford to pay them? He did with reference to an application at Ashton Gate. He was demonstrating that they had submitted other applications where the same restrictions applied and it wasn't considered an issue for them in those applications
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 18, 2015 20:09:44 GMT
From the other forum Todays hearing opened with BRFC barrister announcing that the club was promoted back to the football league yesterday, to be honest I do think it made and impression on the Judge or even if she understood the information.
Our legal team stated by confirming that over the weekend more information had been found from the period 2011/12. The Judge said the case must finish on Friday and then she is straight into a new case leaving her little time to review the evidence. Chris Templeton of Sainsbury resumed being questioned from Friday.
The wording “loss of appetite” was mentioned several times with regard to publicity to counteract adverse publicity. It was confirmed that the delivery hours, which is the reason Sainsbury want to void the Contract was the same at The Mem as what was granted for Ashton Gate. Sainsbury agreed the delivery times granted met the terms of the Contract.
BRFC said they would pay the £1.6m CIL charge PROVIDED Sainsbury accepted the terms of the planning permission. Sentences “work every edge to our benefit” and “keep costs to the minimum” were mentioned in documents from Sainsbury. Another quote was “the elephant in the room” regarding the Section 73 variation and “we need to slow things down and to “duck and dive”
Sainsbury confirmed that they did not get involve in the JR as they did not feel it was their responsibility. BRFC barrister suggested that if Sainsbury really wanted to proceed they would have become involved.
It was indicated that Bristol City Council supplied confidential information to Sainsbury with regard to the possibility the Section 73 may be refused and Sainsbury should have kept BRFC up to date of this. Chris Templeton (Sainsbury) confirmed that he was dealing with about 120 projects so could not know everything on all these projects. When the Section 73 was refused, Sainsbury Board were happy. Chris Templeton finished his questioning at 12.40.
Ben Litman of Sainsbury dealt with the day to day matters of the Contract and he was next up to be questioned. He confirmed that he became aware of the Ashton Gate delivery hours they were prepared to accept 05.00 to 23.00 even though they wanted 05.00 to 24.00 at The Mem.
LUNCH BREAK
It was reconfirmed that BRFC paid out £400k in fees not knowing Sainsbury were to refuse to pay the £1.6m CIL payment.
Willingham and Radice were mentioned along with a Tom Kennedy as objectors. A meeting was requested by Charlotte Leslie MP to discuss the problems with Ben Litman and Litman gained the impression that she did not know what a JR was. However, this was refuted as no evidence in subsequent emails letters could be found. It was confirmed that Sainsbury do not automatically get involved in JR’s or Section 73’s. Nick Higgs asked Sainsbury in Nov 013 if they still wished to proceed? BRFC indicated that building costs were increasing at UWE, £400k for plans and £400k for Buckingham group plans and BRFC did not want to commit funds unless Sainsbury were committed to scheme. Sainsbury said “they were committed under the terms of the Contract” but not in reality. Litman said “that in hindsight I could have advised BRFC we did not wish to proceed”
END OF TODAYS PROCEEDINGS AT 16.20
It must be remembered that BRFC are trying to put Sainsbury in the worst possible way at this stage.
Tomorrow Litman will resume giving evidence followed by two other people on behalf of Sainsbury, then if there is time Toni Watola will start his evidence, if there is not time, he will start on Tuesday..
I hope this conveys what went on, there could well be things omitted.
Restart tomorrow at 10.30
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Pasty on May 18, 2015 20:16:56 GMT
Nick Higgs asked Sainsbury in Nov 013 if they still wished to proceed? BRFC indicated that building costs were increasing at UWE, £400k for plans and £400k for Buckingham group plans and BRFC did not want to commit funds unless Sainsbury were committed to scheme. Sainsbury said “they were committed under the terms of the Contract” but not in reality. Litman said “that in hindsight I could have advised BRFC we did not wish to proceed”
I don't know how that alone isn't enough to put the lid on them.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 18, 2015 20:26:11 GMT
Nick Higgs asked Sainsbury in Nov 013 if they still wished to proceed? BRFC indicated that building costs were increasing at UWE, £400k for plans and £400k for Buckingham group plans and BRFC did not want to commit funds unless Sainsbury were committed to scheme. Sainsbury said “they were committed under the terms of the Contract” but not in reality. Litman said “that in hindsight I could have advised BRFC we did not wish to proceed”
I don't know how that alone isn't enough to put the lid on them. Let us spend money by being dishonest and then did nothing to expedite the contract terms. They really are a nasty company and seems like they would quite happily allow a community football club to go bust. Vile.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 20:47:41 GMT
Sounds good for us so far, but I have no legal knowledge.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 20:59:46 GMT
Nick Higgs asked Sainsbury in Nov 013 if they still wished to proceed? BRFC indicated that building costs were increasing at UWE, £400k for plans and £400k for Buckingham group plans and BRFC did not want to commit funds unless Sainsbury were committed to scheme. Sainsbury said “they were committed under the terms of the Contract” but not in reality. Litman said “that in hindsight I could have advised BRFC we did not wish to proceed”
I don't know how that alone isn't enough to put the lid on them. Let us spend money by being dishonest and then did nothing to expedite the contract terms. They really are a nasty company and seems like they would quite happily allow a community football club to go bust. Vile. I agree with your emotion but BRFC is not a community football club, I wish it was but it is a private limited company with a majority owner.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 18, 2015 21:21:42 GMT
Let us spend money by being dishonest and then did nothing to expedite the contract terms. They really are a nasty company and seems like they would quite happily allow a community football club to go bust. Vile. I agree with your emotion but BRFC is not a community football club, I wish it was but it is a private limited company with a majority owner. Ok. What I mean is that community's would lose the FC they have supported all their lives. Over a few % points drop in potential profit. Maybe we should play at chelts for a season and build a supermarket ourselves on the men. £800000 profit a week isn't enough for JS but it would square us away with a new stadium, training ground, youth set up and first team squad!!
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 18, 2015 22:03:49 GMT
some encouragement so far, I think - Sainsbury's looking very very shabby
I hope our end holds up when scrutinised
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 22:56:19 GMT
nicked from Gaschat
George Ferguson tweeting, assume he's there (@georgefergusonx) 18/05/2015 13:40 #Sainsburys playing fast and loose with facts in attempt to renege on contract with #Bristol #Rovers @official_BRFC pic.twitter.com/kvWhffnyFD What's that clown doing there Bristol city council has never actively supported us in anything suppose he's trying to jump on the band wagon now we are a league club again When haven't they supported us? New north stand, granted; student accommodation redevelopment, granted; convert to a supermarket, granted; extend delivery hours, granted. Who knows how much all these plans have cost. It's not their fault we don't follow through on any of them. Touch of the 'poor us, it's all someone else's fault' there? They keep saying 'yes', we don't do it, and it's their fault.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 19, 2015 5:38:05 GMT
some encouragement so far, I think - Sainsbury's looking very very shabby I hope our end holds up when scrutinised Bad faith seems to be have been demonstrates quite easily, which makes me wonder what Sainsburys line of attack will be as surely they would have exoecred what has been.said so far to come out
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on May 19, 2015 6:01:42 GMT
I'm not sure bad faith has any legal precedence. I hope it does, just not sure. It will obviously go to paint a picture as far as motive goes. And it's interesting Sainsbury don't really contest it is in their own interests not to proceed with purchase. The difference of 5% profit when we're talking millions, is still millions. Greedy b@stards.
It's surely about the legal obligation of the contract and the small print.
Didn't I read somewhere, Sainsbury offered out of court settlement prior to High Court hearing? If true, that speaks volumes..
|
|
TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,353
|
Post by TaiwanGas on May 19, 2015 6:59:32 GMT
I got a feeling the phrase ''due diligence'' will be wheeled out in court shortly......
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Hunt on May 19, 2015 7:02:54 GMT
I'm not sure bad faith has any legal precedence. I hope it does, just not sure. It will obviously go to paint a picture as far as motive goes. And it's interesting Sainsbury don't really contest it is in their own interests not to proceed with purchase. The difference of 5% profit when we're talking millions, is still millions. Greedy b@stards. It's surely about the legal obligation of the contract and the small print. Didn't I read somewhere, Sainsbury offered out of court settlement prior to High Court hearing? If true, that speaks volumes.. Haven't heard this?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 19, 2015 7:09:20 GMT
I'm not sure bad faith has any legal precedence. I hope it does, just not sure. It will obviously go to paint a picture as far as motive goes. And it's interesting Sainsbury don't really contest it is in their own interests not to proceed with purchase. The difference of 5% profit when we're talking millions, is still millions. Greedy b@stards. It's surely about the legal obligation of the contract and the small print. Didn't I read somewhere, Sainsbury offered out of court settlement prior to High Court hearing? If true, that speaks volumes.. Bad faith may not mean anything per se, but is being linked I guess with reasonable endeavours.
It must have been clear that Sainsbury's knew they would look bad under questioning, which makes their defence to come intriguing.
As for a settlement. I don't believe it has been mentioned anywhere that Sainsbury's offered one
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 19, 2015 7:22:47 GMT
times are relatively hard at Sainsbury's. I guess that they felt that its time to bunker down and take a pounding
I'm still hoping its a 30 million pounding
|
|