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 (18611)	4/27/1999 1:33:00 PM
From: maintenance	Respond to of 26850

I guess we have a different idea of Aber's argument. I think Aber is arguing that historically in their dealing with Winspear it was common to act more informally than the JV. Winspear is saying BS, according to the article posted earlier. Since I don't know who is telling the truth, I think both have merit. We will see what a court thinks. If it was common practice to be informal and Winspear can't prove otherwise, and Aber did act to their detriment under the belief that they were participating, then Aber has a good argument. If that's all BS and Winspear can prove that they always went by the letter of the JV then Aber doesn't have a good argument. That's what I thought was the main theme. How is Aber trying to get exempt? Are they not trying to enforce a verbal agreement, to have the more recent verbal agreement supercede the earlier written agreement? Cheers