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 : Winspear Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lorne who wrote (18606)	4/27/1999 11:31:00 AM
From: Gord Bolton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26850

What issue do you suppose the court will be required to decide? The JV agreement defines the specific terms of the agreement. Aber agrees that they maintain their percentage through cash contributions to the development of the property. A very detailed plan and budget was submitted in writing to Aber. Aber did not respond with a written notice or a check even while the program was in full implementation. Therefore they are diluted. Where there is a written contract between the parties the judge will not interfere. A party may not challenge a specific term of an agreement without claiming that the entire agreement is a fraud of some kind. Aber takes a risk in argueing that in that they may find themselves out of any percentage. Once Aber opens the field, WInspear may ask the Judge to have the opportunity to refund Aber the meager amounts that they have contributed to date and take the entire percentage. That would be the #2 Canadian Business dumb bunny business move of the decade. So, you might be right, maybe it will get in the door. But keep in mind, when you attack a contract that you have signed yourself into, you cannot thereafter rely on any term in the agreement that might protect your remaining interest.