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: Gord Bolton who wrote (18608)	4/27/1999 12:27:00 PM
From: maintenance	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

Hi Gord. Get yourself a book on intro to contracts. It is clear you have no concept of the application of contract law. Your posts on other topics are great but your missing this one entirely. Any part of a contract may be judged independently of the rest of the contract. It really is not simple. A clause must first be determined to be at the crux of the contract or a rather insignificant part. Further a court will decide interpretation of the contract, in fact, even if specific legal terms are used, the court does not always take the position that that was the intended meaning. A perfect example is exemption clauses. Have you ever read exemption clauses on a ticket. They are usually in tiny writing, in light ink, on the back, and usually without effect. Prior practice would certainly be persuasive regardless of written terms. On the other hand waiving a requirement once does not imply it will be waived in the future. It would appear as though if Winspear's claim is true, they could prove it but simply submitting signed documents. That could prove that there was no informal practice. Cheers