|
Post by didlesknowmydad on Mar 4, 2016 14:36:05 GMT
Where do you get that from? As I understand it, the case is to determine if the contract is still valid. If we win then the court will merely state that the contract is still valid. If either side subsequently fail to comply with the contract, then we have a breach situation, and back to court to compensate the breach, or more likely there will be a settlement.
Why is it not possible to proceed? Its a matter of Sainsbury's putting the purchase price in an escrow account, Rovers vacating the land when a stadium is built, and then Sainsbury's taking possession of the land when we vacate. All in line with the contract.
I got slightly confused, plus my memory's going: what was the case about? Sainsbury's were the claimant; was it basically to claim their right to walk away (in effect, to enforce that clause of the contract and have us stop bothering them)? Whatever the semantics, though, I agree with you. My understanding was that, based on the court case, the contract either stands (Sainsbury's pay £30 million, we build a stadium, move out, and they take possession), or it doesn't. Yes but if it's adjudged the contract stands then Sainsbury's have breached it and it appears that would need a separate court proceedings to confirm breach and set costs for damages. I can see no way that Sainsbury's will be forced to proceed with a purchase.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 14:38:56 GMT
I got slightly confused, plus my memory's going: what was the case about? Sainsbury's were the claimant; was it basically to claim their right to walk away (in effect, to enforce that clause of the contract and have us stop bothering them)? Whatever the semantics, though, I agree with you. My understanding was that, based on the court case, the contract either stands (Sainsbury's pay £30 million, we build a stadium, move out, and they take possession), or it doesn't. Yes but if it's adjudged the contract stands then Sainsbury's have breached it and it appears that would need a separate court proceedings to confirm breach and set costs for damages. I can see no way that Sainsbury's will be forced to proceed with a purchase. Just edited my post to add something saying sort of similar.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Mar 4, 2016 15:25:04 GMT
Law Experts and Justice is one of the modules I study at UWE; the lecturer from the law department didn't know anything about the case but from my description, they seemed fairly certain the most compensation the appeal could see awarded to the club is any potential loss of income caused by Sainsbury's from the time the planning permission was passed through and legal fees incurred. This would explain the fairly nonchalant attitude towards the appeal, however this was several months back and he also said UWE Stadium was still very much part of the Chancellor's strategy/manifesto thingy which I scoffed loudly at, at the time.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 4, 2016 16:14:40 GMT
Law Experts and Justice is one of the modules I study at UWE; the lecturer from the law department didn't know anything about the case but from my description, they seemed fairly certain the most compensation the appeal could see awarded to the club is any potential loss of income caused by Sainsbury's from the time the planning permission was passed through and legal fees incurred. This would explain the fairly nonchalant attitude towards the appeal, however this was several months back and he also said UWE Stadium was still very much part of the Chancellor's strategy/manifesto thingy which I scoffed loudly at, at the time. Plus enforcement of the contract.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 4, 2016 16:17:43 GMT
I got slightly confused, plus my memory's going: what was the case about? Sainsbury's were the claimant; was it basically to claim their right to walk away (in effect, to enforce that clause of the contract and have us stop bothering them)? Whatever the semantics, though, I agree with you. My understanding was that, based on the court case, the contract either stands (Sainsbury's pay £30 million, we build a stadium, move out, and they take possession), or it doesn't. Yes but if it's adjudged the contract stands then Sainsbury's have breached it and it appears that would need a separate court proceedings to confirm breach and set costs for damages. I can see no way that Sainsbury's will be forced to proceed with a purchase. Have they breached?
Why can't they be forced to proceed? In a land sale money goes one way, title goes the other. Why can't that be enforced? Using legal speak, land is real property, so even if a breach is found, then why can't the court order specific performance of the contract? It would avoid having to try to value to contract.
|
|