Share
80 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 1
clock Created with Sketch. 04/04/18
07:53
Share
Originally posted by NZ Trader
↑
The defence details The defence , filed in the Supreme Court of South Australia, strongly refutes Pybar’s claims on several grounds including that:Pybar failed to properly perform its services with due care and skill and in accordance with the contract and good industry practice;Pybar failed to supply equipment and supplies of an acceptable standard, quality and specification;Pybar failed to provide adequate and properly qualified and trained labour;Pybar failed to progress services as contracted ; and Pybar failed to apply a proper standard of skill necessary to competently perform services.The defence sets out the arguments as to how Pybar’s various breaches of contract gave rise to Challenger suffering significant loss and damage in its operations for the consideration of the court. losses caused by improper mining practices , and for recovery of overcharges.
Expand
All agreed NZ Trader but its only performance against the written contract and the compliance to the Pybar/WPG contract. The performance of Bynecut has no relivance in this case is the point I am making.
