|
Post by a more piratey game on May 15, 2015 13:50:20 GMT
Somebody else did suggest prevously the BoD (or our legal advisors?) got completely side tracked dealing with the JR they overlooked the onerous conditions, however, Sainsbury's surely didn't help themselves by refusing to assist with the delivery hours pp? sounds like a case for a draw with a cash award but not full contract amount please do not speak such heresy - we are in it to win it
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 15, 2015 13:50:34 GMT
and the prize is a sparkly new stadium
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 15, 2015 13:53:25 GMT
The presiding judge, Mrs Justice Proudman, described the case as “extremely complex”.
Announcing that she would reserve her decision to a later date, the judge said: “There is no way I will write the judgment immediately after this case.”
The club has indicated it is vital to know by June whether it can hold Sainsbury’s to the deal and keep the university on board with its proposals for a new stadium.
David Matthias QC, for Rovers, conceded in court that the agreement between Sainsbury’s and the club was “Byzantine in its complexity”.
Rovers own QC conceding it is complex hardly conjures up good vibes, but hey it's 'watertight'
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 15, 2015 14:14:34 GMT
'extremely complex' is the opposite of 'open and shut', I take it
so unlikely to end up in a one winner/one loser result, maybe
and maybe why both sides thought it worth fighting
interesting times. The main thing I've learnt so far is that the agreement was Byzantine in its complexity. Didn't have a hint of that until today, at least as far as I've picked up
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on May 15, 2015 14:22:54 GMT
Byzantine = barrister speak for "loads of money" Lovely jubbly!
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on May 15, 2015 14:41:23 GMT
If it's that complex could Rovers be forgiven for not realising Sainsbury could, potentially, walk away, assuming it was Sainbury's how suppled the complex contract for the deal?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 14:42:04 GMT
If it's that complex could Rovers be forgiven for not realising Sainsbury could, potentially, walk away, assuming it was Sainbury's how suppled the complex contract for the deal? Um, no.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 15, 2015 14:44:47 GMT
If it's that complex could Rovers be forgiven for not realising Sainsbury could, potentially, walk away, assuming it was Sainbury's how suppled the complex contract for the deal? Um, no. Um, Maybe
|
|
|
Post by brovers90 on May 15, 2015 14:48:56 GMT
Summary: Sainsburys say BCC didn't grant full enough planning permission. Sainsbury's told us to sort it, we left it to the last minute "scrabbling around" and missed the cut off date, allowing them to walk away. We say Sainsburys were obliged to help change the planning conditions but didn't, and that the cut off date did not allow them to walk away. I say we appear to acknowledge the existence of a cut off date and I suddenly feel a whole lot less confident. Source: Points West lunchtime bulletin, I apologise for any errors! Love this quote - Matthias is a gas head! Matthias is a gas head! Mark Wonnacott QC, for Sainsbury’s, who described the Memorial stadium as “old-fashioned and rather dilapidated”, argued that the “structure of the contract” meant that conditions had not been met by a cut-off date and the contract had been lawfully terminated. Matthias said: “With respect, my learned friend misunderstands the significance of the term ‘cut-off date’ in this agreement.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on May 15, 2015 14:51:24 GMT
I always thought the presumption in law was that both parties were of equal standing when entering into a contract so can't then say "sorry Guv didnt realise it was that complicated those nasty big supermarkets have done us up like a kipper" as an excuse. But no expert so happy to be put right on that one.
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on May 15, 2015 14:59:18 GMT
I always thought the presumption in law was that both parties were of equal standing when entering into a contract so can't then say "sorry Guv didnt realise it was that complicated those nasty big supermarkets have done us up like a kipper" as an excuse. But no expert so happy to be put right on that one. In general if the wording of a contract is ambiguous the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. Assuming Sainsbury's provided the wording any ambiguity is therefore likely to go against them. However this may well be a situation where both contributed towards the wording as it appears to be a one off.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on May 15, 2015 15:34:25 GMT
Based on what we have gleaned from the first day, despite the all the overconfident bluster, the contract is anything but watertight.
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on May 15, 2015 15:38:29 GMT
Based on what we have gleaned from the first day, despite the all the overconfident bluster, the contract is anything but watertight. Clearly - otherwise this court appearance would never have been deemed necessary!
From the Gaschat forum on the morning deliberations:
Just spoke with our roving reporter.
Sainsburys decision to call it off hinged on them getting a 12% return on their £30m investment.
When they realised it would only be 7% return they had three choices.
Walk away and endure the bad publicity.
Build a smaller store and additional housing (which would achieve the 12% return)
Sell to a competitor.
They chose the first option.
Rovers asked for confidential documentation of internal Sainsburys meetings to be disclosed to the court but the judge refused the application.
Sainsburys insist that the contract date expired and they could walk away. However, apparently it is not so cut and dried as that, as apparently these contracts have a further time delay incorporated implicitly in them.
With regard to the lawyers on this list, the judge admitted to the court that she has still not fully read the papers as she only picked them up a couple of days ago.
In attendance are NH and Toni Watola. No Eddie Ware or his good lady.
Severncider has just completed an interview with Points West.
Court resumes at 2 pm
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 15:41:17 GMT
Nick's 'watertight' contract hinges on the definition of 'cut off date'?
Only at the Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 15, 2015 15:46:34 GMT
Nick's 'watertight' contract hinges on the definition of 'cut off date'? Only at the Rovers. Are you of the opinion Bamber that the contract was raised in house By rovers BOD and not a licenced Law Person ?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 15, 2015 15:57:23 GMT
I always thought the presumption in law was that both parties were of equal standing when entering into a contract so can't then say "sorry Guv didnt realise it was that complicated those nasty big supermarkets have done us up like a kipper" as an excuse. But no expert so happy to be put right on that one. In general if the wording of a contract is ambiguous the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. Assuming Sainsbury's provided the wording any ambiguity is therefore likely to go against them. However this may well be a situation where both contributed towards the wording as it appears to be a one off. Complex might not mean ambiguos wording Anyway we are talking a multi million pound contract which presumambly we had experts trawl through it all before hand
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 15:58:49 GMT
Nick's 'watertight' contract hinges on the definition of 'cut off date'? Only at the Rovers. Are you of the opinion Bamber that the contract was raised in house By rovers BOD and not a licenced Law Person ? No, it was a multi-million pound contract that unlocked (I think the EP reported) some £300m of regional investment, it will have been drafted professionally, or if Sainsbury's drafted it then Nick will have had professionals check the detail and advise him. But I would have thought that it would have gone through more than one draft as it was sent back and forth until both parties were comfortable? If this goes belly up, would you be surprised if Nick didn't turn his attention to whoever advised him that the contract was watertight?
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on May 15, 2015 16:01:49 GMT
In the history of the world there never has been , nor ever will be, any such beast as a "watertight" contract. Laughable phrase to use and NH is well aware of that.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on May 15, 2015 16:07:49 GMT
In the history of the world there never has been , nor ever will be, any such beast as a "watertight" contract. Laughable phrase to use and NH is well aware of that. I'm glad he did though. "We got it covered" and "funding is in place" has got a bit tiresome so it will be nice to have some new rope to hang him with.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 15, 2015 16:15:19 GMT
nice update thanks RG2
|
|