I can only assume that AJM used the standard "set-off" clauses to enforce the LD provisions at the time of granting practical completion. Enforcing LDs would have triggered numerous counterclaims by CVL, and subsequent responses by AJM..... until it went to the dispute resolution officers under each contract. Which would take another couple of months - until the dispute went into arbitration by a third party (would love to know the outcome of arbitration), until it ended up in court - where it is apparently now heading.
All of this takes months/years, before it ends up in court. Standard time bars in contracts allows for maximum time to respond, and depending how you argue your case, it could be beneficial to wait 14 days (if that is the max) to respond, rather than respond on day 1 - if it is in your interest to create a protracted dispute.
The timeframe does not surprise me. What is disappointing (and I am not an accountant) is why AJM did not allow for this provision on their financial statements.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- 1MC
- Ann: Response to Civmec Legal Action
Ann: Response to Civmec Legal Action, page-49
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 44 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add 1MC (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
|
|||||
Last
3.3¢ |
Change
0.004(13.8%) |
Mkt cap ! $8.935M |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
2.9¢ | 3.3¢ | 2.9¢ | $2.906K | 94.87K |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
1 | 11100 | 3.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
3.3¢ | 374796 | 2 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
1 | 11100 | 0.030 |
4 | 442761 | 0.029 |
1 | 10000 | 0.028 |
2 | 134223 | 0.026 |
3 | 210000 | 0.025 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
0.033 | 374796 | 2 |
0.034 | 333567 | 5 |
0.035 | 23800 | 1 |
0.036 | 378239 | 5 |
0.037 | 70464 | 2 |
Last trade - 16.10pm 17/09/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
1MC (ASX) Chart |