Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : ABER RESOURCES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: I_C_Deadpeople who wrote (1047)	3/17/1999 12:09:00 AM
From: Gord Bolton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2006

Thanks Eric, The arguement that I was making is that from all appearances Aber would have an arguement for "plausable deniability" had the drilling program failed to turn up 50 million tonnes of diamondiferous kimberlite. In their third quarter report they spoke about the 1999 program but they have never announced that they intended to participate. I believe the JV contract speaks to the process to be followed by both parties with regard to expenditures and percentages and what must be done to participate. Let us suppose that you and I have a contract which lays out the terms for a rental agreement. You are supposed to pay rent to me by the first of the month or you are out. On one particular month you fail to make payment on time and give me a hard luck story. I allow some grace and do not evict you on the spot. Does that mean that you get to stay forever for free? Not. Aber has elected to not participate on previous occasions and has lost percentage in accordance with the JV contract. You claim that WSP has declined to exercise their prerogatives at some point in the past. Does that mean that any partner of WSP can ride for free until a mine is profitable and then elect to participate and retrieve their original percentage? Not. Winspear is not estopped from exercising their rights under the contract. The specific terms are there to protect both parties. The suit has no merit. Aber cannot claim that their is some fundamental unfairness in the specific terms and conditions of the contract that they agreed to. A contract is a contract. The suit has no merit, is frivolous and vexacious and may be subject to double damages. If you do not agree with the a/m try this with your wife in divorce court. Your honour, the first three times that I violated the Marriage contract my wife did not exercise her prerogatives and forgave me. She is therefore estopped from divorcing me now. If the Aber management is feeding the shareholders that for dinner, you may need a special meeting. No one needs to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure this one out. The only thing that would relieve Aber form the terms and conditions of the JV contract is a specific letter from Winspear saying that; "With regard to the 1999 program we do not need a written committment from you. We will carry all the costs, do all the work and you may decide at the end of the program if you wish to benefit from our risks by paying your share. We specifically waive all our rights under the contract and grant you this special privilege just because you are all such nice guys and because we love you and think that you should benefit from the risk of our shareholders money." If Aber management cannot show such a letter then they are wasting more money putting on a show. I doubt that there is a lawyer in Canada who would tell you different. Any posturing here would clearly be of a face saving variety but will not change the reality I have been an ABZ shareholder and now I am not.