There were some fascinating aspects to the case. Eg. the phrase used by ASIC; "binding contracts", would seem to imply that there is some other alternative form of contract that is "non-binding."
I am not a legal person, but I have passed the formal Securities Institute course of Securities-Industry-Law. It is mostly about contract law. Nowhere in the volumes of notes is there any reference to a non-binding contract. It is an oxyomoron. If an agreement is non-binding, then it is not a contract, pure and simple. And a proper contract is binding, no matter what the Chinese, or the Financial Review, may say. If one side pulls out they are in breach-of-contract. And subject to the penalties listed in the contract for breach.
A conviction would have meant that every contract would be worthless, because one party could pull out and suffer no consequences while the innocent party went to jail. It was doomed to fail, and makes ASIC look pretty dumb.
The whole exercise was a dead-horse waste of tax-payer's money.
Of all the formal studies that I have done, contract law is one of the most useful. Not every stock buyer realises that the instant his order is confirmed as done, he is subject to a contract with the same legal force as the one buying his house which is signed in triplicate in front of expensive silks.
FMG Price at posting:
$4.44 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)