Megafactories buildout could up nickel demand in batteries 19 fold—Benchmark, page-87

For those who may have been confused by Chotto's ill-informed posts yesterday about what constitutes a 'binding agreement', the following articles should help.

The discussion was quite absurd really. I responded to GA09's incorrect post that SKI was a 'done deal' by pointing out that the term sheet was not binding until the conditions precedent were met. As those conditions are still up in the air, there is no 'done deal'.

Chotto then responded that 'that's not how conditions work'.

What he wrote was that the term sheet is binding irrespective of whether or not there are conditions precedent, but if those conditions are not met then SKI can walk away. Which, of course, is TOTALLY illogical because, as everyone would realise, if SKI can walk away, then, by definition, there are circumstances where the term sheet is NOT binding. Therefore it is not binding per se, as Chotto contends, but only conditionally binding.

Anyway, as I said, these links clarify Chotto's errors and actually confirm , in the case law, that there is no blanket understanding that term sheets are 'binding' per se (irrespective of what management says). It depends entirely on the specific wording and intent in each document and can only be definitively decided in litigation.

https://www.invigorlaw.com/key-term-sheet-provisions-conditions-precedent-to-financing/

https://www.pwc.com.au/legal/assets/investing-in-infrastructure/iif-39-memorandum-feb16-3.pdf

https://www.dundaslawyers.com.au/what-is-a-term-sheet/

https://www.jonesday.com/Contract-L...-Unenforceable-Agreement-to-Agree-05-31-2010/