The judges hearing the appeal wrote paragraph 71. IMO there is absolutely no confusion in their minds that an agency agreement was formed between Heathgate and Alliance by clauses 13.6 and clauses 10.11 of the JVA operating together.
As mentioned in my original post on this thread the legal actions between H/Q and Alliance started before a more comprehensive Mining Joint Venture Agreement (contemplated in the original JVA) was able to be drafted and agreed to, leaving the original clause 10.11 as the only agreement between the parties in respect of the sale and marketing of the product from the mine. This clause many not fully specify the exact workings of the agency agreement that it has created.
As per Alliance's announcement of the 12/11/2014 we are "seeking a declaration that the termination is valid and orders that ACE's share of product be delivered up to ACE." because
"ACE directed Quasar to sell its share of product at the best available price. Quasar has refused to comply with that direction."
Q/H have not complied with Alliance's directions and the original wording of clause 10.11 may not include a formal mechanism for terminating the agency agreement, hence the need to have the court validate the termination.
These are just all my speculations and opinions, I'm not a lawyer, I have never had any legal training. Do not rely in any way on what I've said. Do your own research. Seek professional advice if you are unsure about any investment decisions and their suitability to your particular circumstances.
Eshmun
