Thnx Gold Member There is a 4th well used path and that is both...

Thnx Gold Member

There is a 4th well used path and that is both parties agree to carry their own costs..

Contract law is offer and acceptance and the consideration makes it binding so when I read through I see that MLX & TAM had reached an agreement which was clearly based on conditions and it was called binding in that both parties agreed to be bound by those conditions No1 being TAM shareholders voting yes to it..

Now in the world of commerce both parties would be looked at as being informed and aware as to how transactions are conducted - now I get that MLX thought it had this deal in the bag and that it only had to clear the shareholder vote hurdle what I don't get is how it thinks that another party or parties have no legal right to make a rival bid or offer and what I really don't understand is why MLX didn't increase its offer which is where I think the courts may well go with this because in the end it was always subject to shareholder approval and so the "binding" would only really become binding once shareholders said "yes"..

Further to that the HOA "binding" agreement was in reality an offer by MLX being put to shareholders which was not "binding" until they voted "yes" - the TAM board has to act in its shareholders best interests by law so when a bigger rival offer came it had to present this to shareholders because how could it not?

Personally I would see a sensible outcome with both parties agreeing to carry their own costs and to end this before it reaches a point where the costs have to fought for rather than the original issue. IMOO