I think the issue as to whether there are damages or not relies...

First 19 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
chrisCarter

935 Posts.

57

27/02/15

12:11

Post #: 14829680
Share

Originally posted by eshmun ↑

Chris you wrote:

"Disagree. I believe that as, a general legal principle, it's established that if one party has been damaged by another party through a contractual breach, the courts will attempt to put the damaged party back to the position it would have been in, as far as possible, had that breach not occurred. In AGS's case, that is restitution of the 25% or damages for the lost 10%."

Let me clarify on iffy.

You have Clause 6.3 of the JV which explicitly limits Heathgates (as Managers) liability for loses under the agreement to actions that could be considered wilful misconduct or grossly negligent. In the very unlikely case that the court views Heathgates actions in regard to the shipped concentrate as actions of the Manager of the joint venture, then it would be up to Alliance to prove that Heathgate acted in a wilful or grossly negligent way.

As I've suggested previously Clause 6.3 is likely to have created a relationship of agency between Heathgate and Alliance. As Alliance's agents Heathgate's relationship then becomes one of a fiduciary. A fiduciary has a legal duty to act solely in another party's interests and for their benefit.

If this is the case, as it undoubtabley should be, then it becomes an argument about whether or not Heathgate has acted properly in its fiduciary capacity.

The information that is currently being sought by the court (if the information we have is correct) see below:

"(a) the existence and nature of an available spot market for the sale of uranium concentrates; and
(b) the ability of the defendant to procure a sale on such market of uranium concentrates produced by the Joint Venture, including the Shipped Uranium."

gives a clue that the order being sought from the court to recognise Alliance's sacking of Heathgate as agents to sell and market the concentrate from the mine and the claim for damages, will revolve around proving one way or another, whether Heathgate is exercising and has exercised its duty to Alliance in securing sales of the concentrate from the mine. It will be up to Alliance to prove to a sufficient level to the court that they aren't and didn't.

These are just all my speculations and opinions, I'm not a lawyer, I have never had any legal training. Do not rely in any way on what I've said. Do your own research. Seek professional advice if you are unsure about any investment decisions and their suitability to your particular circumstances.

Eshmun

Expand

I think the issue as to whether there are damages or not relies on whether AGS lawfully terminated their agreement with Quasar last year.

If AGS lawfully terminated the agreement, then AGS is entitled to receive full restitution for all the consequences that have followed as a result of Quasar not following a lawful directive.

Honestly believe it's as simple as that.

Whatever is or isn't in the JV is not relevant, in my opinion, here. Can't, in my opinion, disclaim away lawful obligations.

AGS Price at posting: 8.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

MLS

Metals Australia kicking off plant study at Lac Carheil; Canadian tariff tailwind potential

ASN

Utah authorities sign off on Anson's lithium extraction plans at Green River

Dale Gillham's weekly wrap: US fracking support boosts outlook for Australian gas stocks

ENV

Enova Mining unveils "high-grade" REE drill hits at Coda North, Brazil

MM8

Medallion Metals kicking off 15,000m drill run at Ravensthorpe gold play

MKG

Mako sniffs gold at 170 g/t at Cote d’Ivoire's Napié play

VUL

Vulcan appoints investment bank and M&A veteran to board

Week 37 Wrap: HotCopper likes Cuban oil; markets shrug debate off for Putin; firebrand quant says social media a market threat

AZY

Antipa divests its Citadel interest to JV partner Rio for A$17M, refocuses on Minyari Dome

NAM

Olam Agri raises Namoi takeover offer to 75 cents a share and receives shareholder backing

There are more pages in this discussion • 603 more messages in this thread...

First 19 Last

Add AGS (ASX) to my watchlist

I think the issue as to whether there are damages or not relies...

Top Stories

Metals Australia kicking off plant study at Lac Carheil; Canadian tariff tailwind potential

Utah authorities sign off on Anson's lithium extraction plans at Green River

Dale Gillham's weekly wrap: US fracking support boosts outlook for Australian gas stocks

Enova Mining unveils "high-grade" REE drill hits at Coda North, Brazil

Medallion Metals kicking off 15,000m drill run at Ravensthorpe gold play

Mako sniffs gold at 170 g/t at Cote d’Ivoire's Napié play

Vulcan appoints investment bank and M&A veteran to board

Week 37 Wrap: HotCopper likes Cuban oil; markets shrug debate off for Putin; firebrand quant says social media a market threat

Antipa divests its Citadel interest to JV partner Rio for A$17M, refocuses on Minyari Dome

Olam Agri raises Namoi takeover offer to 75 cents a share and receives shareholder backing

Featured News