IMO the indemnity clause is of minimal benefit to GGP as a small company like AKW would probably go bankrupt settling the disputed 25%.
However, in such a scenario, if the outstanding agreement can be shown to be valid only between the 3rd party and AKW, GGP may not be liable if AKW is unable to follow through on indemnity
Just my 'common sense' take on it.
court case, page-11
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 52 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)