Settlement/purchase options, page-557

On the 12th of March 2013 three Federal Court Justices, Justices North, Cowdrowy and Katzmann JJ pasted a written judgment on the appeal to the records case.

In their considerations they concluded the following.

"We conclude that the relationship between Alliance and Quasar, as manager, is not a relationship of principal and agent. This is not merely because of the express disclaimer in cl 13.6. A number of other provisions of the JVA lead to this conclusion." (paragraph 63 of the judgement).

BUT in paragraph 71 of the judgement they make this crucial distinction about the contractual nature of the JVA.

"These clauses may be contrasted with the provision made in cl 10.11 for the appointment by Alliance of Heathgate to market and sell “on its behalf” its share of minerals other than gold produced by the mining operation. This provision envisages the creation of an agency relationship for a specific purpose. It is one of the specific provisions contemplated in the exceptional category for which cl 13.6 allowed."

According to these three Federal Court judges, Q/H are obliged to act on Alliance's behalf when selling the uranium not on the JV's behalf.

…..DR “No, my obligation was to sell U on behalf of the jv” Bad answer.

If I was prosecuting this case I would have jumped on this very hard. Smoking Gun IMO.

But who knows how our lawyers have run this. Let's hope they know what they are doing.

Eshmun