facing the music, page-23

Hi 3gb - it's always good to look at the issue from the other side and i think many of us will have done this over the years. I certainly have.

We've already seen from the judgement re access to books just how important terms and conditions are in contract law. Our Appeal was dismissed. But the main action is the ML and D conduct case and no shareholder, to my knowledge, has seen the original JV.

This was written before IG made his large investment, and I agree with HG that it does seem (from the annual reports) that AGS was concentrating primarily on the gold in Maldon at that time. I don't agree though with HG's argument that ACE would have automatically extended the lease, which was about to expire.

IG is too astute a business man for that (imo).

HG had not met the terms of the original JV agreement - and could not do so in the time available. They were therefore compelled to request an extension - and to make a new offer (they increased the consideration). .. Would HG's request have been accepted if what was proven in 2005 known by AGS/IG in 2004? I think not. .. I think most people would not have entered into another agreement either.

Many of us have probably been in a situation where we have had a contract made void because the terms weren't met and additional information had become available, affecting the value of an asset. We have.

I can't see how HG can make an argument about what ACE would/might have done had the directors known all that they knew at the time the request was made. I do believe though that the 75:25 ratio was not fair and that had HG disclosed all they knew and offered a better ratio (rather than a slightly higher expenditure) then that (to me) could not have been seen as misleading or deceptive.

Let's hope JM sees these historical events in the same light.