Just to clarify the judges in the appeal judgement used the existence of clause 6.3 of the JVA to make the point that by imposing limits on Heathgate's liabilities as manger under clause 6.3 of the JVA the agreement showed that Heathgate are acting as managers and not agents.
It would seem though that Heathgate by virtue of clause 10.11 of the JVA are agents of Alliance, in their limited role as marketers and sellers of the mine product.
Their potential liabilities as agents under clause 10.11 (the sales and marketing agreement) may not be limited to those defined under clause 6.3.
Damages claim will be iffy IMO.
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
Legal Matters, page-6
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 616 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)