|
Post by Windmill Hill Gas on Jul 13, 2015 10:55:50 GMT
Disappointing about the sainsbury's decision but I'm not that surprised. There doesn't seem to be any mention of the possible compensation that was talked about before the case though. Can anybody shed any light on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 11:00:30 GMT
Why would there be compo?
They found that they had every right to cancel the water tight contract.
|
|
|
Post by Rod1883 on Jul 13, 2015 11:02:44 GMT
I guess we'll get more info from the club at some point to clarify, but it seems to me that we lost - straightforward, no mitigating conditions or any sign that we won any point being argued. That would mean, I imagine, no compensation and presumably we will need to pay our legal costs, if not some of Sainsbury's too!
Bloody bunch of crooks Sainsbury's having used the law to get out of something that they clearly didn't have any intent of following through on, despite stringing us and others along and allowing us to incur cost after cost, and now also the costs associated with this legal case.
Hopefully the Board can refinance to a cheaper loan than the ridiculous "Wonga" type thing currently in place.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Jul 13, 2015 11:02:49 GMT
Why would there be compo? They found that they had every right to cancel the water tight contract. Well it clearly wasn't water tight was it?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 11:03:56 GMT
Jesus.
You would think with 3,445 post's to your name you might be able to detect sarcasm on here GGMI...
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Jul 13, 2015 11:38:38 GMT
It seems to me that whoever were our legal eagles at the time of the drafting are the ones we should be looking to sue after what the judge said about it.
But forget Sainsburys. No point chasing them. It would be good money after bad.
|
|