Ann: Wartsila Contract Update, page-31

First 31 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
SteveSage

3,032 Posts.

1160

08/09/20

06:25

Post #: 47158475
Share

Originally posted by Pierre83: ↑

My take is slightly different, the 28th is critical in both the job needing to be completed by that day for some sort of trigger And it was the reference date in the payment claim. I think as Wartsila believed this was not met they did not consider Primero’s Payment claim and hence the big difference..

Like me saying here is $5 dollars for some milk but if you get it back to me in 30minutes (as I agreed to make a coffee for my client before he leaves in 35 minutes) I will give you $85. You then go pay taxi to drive you there and back at a cost of $40 which you have to pay. You get the milk back in exactly 30 minutes and then put a claim in for the $80 and request a payment schedule begin from that 30 minute mark when you hand me the bag and set out a schedule that I pay the remainder in 25% every minute from the 30 mininute mark until I have paid you the additional $80.. I argue that no because by the time I opened the bag and checked it was 6 minutes and therefore I only owe you $5 I have already paid you.. We go to court and the court says YES you did deliver a product in 30minutes so I can't say you did not meet my outline But you can't claim the money from the 30minute mark as I did not have time to check the bag to ensure the contents were correct. If you wanted to use the 30minute mark it was your responsibility to ensure the milk was out of the bag for me to see . Now in this case the time lines are obviously different and we are not taking about milk (maybe spilt milk) but from memory Primero advised they got completion from Wartsila in June ( like me confirming you got the right milk at the 40minute mark) and the court dismissed Wartsila claim that because they did not check it on the 28th it does not count as SW completion.. So in short yes you bought me a product in 30mins as per agreement and yes now I have checked it is correct (hopefully) so in theory now our payment claims and subsequent schedule should be OK to go through.

There is my milk story for the night

In this case appears there was also a partial payment made for works completed in Jan update which Wartsila also considered Void when the 28th date in their mind was not met. Hence they did not take any of that into consideration when they valued payment plan at $6m..Seems like they just trying to prove a point. That is my assumptions.

Expand

54m (or 67m) outstanding buys a lot of friggin milk!

Considering the size of primero, lesser companies would have gone under with so much money being withheld....I'm shocked a company the size of wartsila are playing these games....I guess they can if they are winning contracts & small subcontractors are desperate for work so they take advantage of them

i hope wartsila's name gets tarnished because of this....on the face of it, it seems primero did a good job in a timely manner, & these jackasses are arguing about over 150m work over 2 years on whether you can open a pdf!!

PGX Price at posting: 23.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

IMU

Imugene kicks off Australian trial for blood cancer treatment

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

UBI

Universal Biosensors flat despite fresh deal with US medical product distributor

Week 45 Wrap: Combat sports usher in Trump 2.0 – or is it male insecurity?; RBA boring; Propane suggests China alive

FG1

Flynn Gold reaches milestone exploration target for Golden Ridge

MMI

Metro Mining inks bauxite offtake contracts into 2026 with Chinese m

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

Trump Victory Sends Bitcoin Surging Above $75K – Is $100K Next?

Palladium's the newest geopolitical hot commodity. But ASX exposure is limited

HotCopper Highlights: Your most watched and most discussed stocks this week