judgement day, page-114

small fish - I think that the difference in our case is that the deception was personal and unconscionable and that it involved a request for an extension of a much earlier agreement. That is, a new offer.

I think It is personal in the sense that IG and the directors would not have agreed to the request for an extension without prior discussions - which they did have - had they been fully informed. And unconscionable in the sense that HG/Q are the experts in the field and are/were the registered owners of 75% of what had previously been 100% owned by Alliance. But did they fully disclose their discoveries to their junior partner prior to the new offer/request?

The terms and conditions of the old AGS/HG JV agreement had not been met, and could not have been met, in the time available prior to the contract's expiry. My belief is that IG was deceived during discussions before the extension was granted, and that AGS would not have extended the "about to expire agreement" had they been fully informed of all the results/prospectivity known to the senior partner.

I guess the question is will the judge believe that the extension would not have been granted at the same ratio (75:25) had HG been honest at he time the contract was about to expire. .. What would the "reasonable man" believe ?