only 2 outcomes, page-3

exactly...to think a company can jv with another company a piece of land to INVESTIGATE ITS PROSPECTIVITY...and then to negotiate an extension of that jv without telling its jv partner ALL data got so far is absurd....i dont think it is a 'technicality' ags are relying...if they can prove it it is black and white, BUT, and i think it is a big but, i'm pretty sure in a case like this that the judge is not bound to go with strictly the letter of the law and could go down the road of what reasonably could be assumed the outcome would have been...especially if he does view ags' point as a technicality