SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Gord Bolton who wrote (1098)3/19/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: I_C_Deadpeople  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2006
 
How do you know that the JV agreement does not state -

Opertor bills JV partner(s), partner(s) must pay in x days?

It is quite clear that no one in this forum has read the agreement, so let the lawyers hash it out....



To: Gord Bolton who wrote (1098)3/19/1999 12:07:00 PM
From: The Vet  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2006
 
So many bush lawyers on this thread - Here is a take from my experience. If Winspear was required to send a bill to Aber and they didn't send it - then Aber should win. If they did send the bill and Aber didn't pay it then Winspear should win. In every court I have been involved in (and it's been far too many) you cannot be in default unless an invoice or bill has been issued by the debtor and then they failed to pay.

In other words a bank cannot walk in and grab your house for non payment of a mortgage without notification first, neither can a utility cut off your power for non payment if they didn't send you a bill (or at least they can show that they attempted to send a bill). Aber may have failed to notify Winspear in writing and certainly that is VERY careless of them (if that was actually required by the JV and which seems reasonable to me) but in turn I doubt that Winspear can just cut Aber out of the JV unless they have provided notice and the bill in writing to Aber, and they have given Aber a chance to pay up within a reasonable time. This rule cuts both ways...