pcbear 10,913 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Duff and Phelps were overseeing all of this as well, was there any mention at the time from them of this paperwork?edit!! ive just read the post two above. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Have you got your fingers in your ears?I honestly had not heard of the "invitation to treat" clause. Must have missed it, can you show me all the posts I have missed? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I honestly had not heard of the "invitation to treat" clause. Must have missed it, can you show me all the posts I have missed?I could but as you said you were "running blind" you probably wouldn't see them either Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coop troop 106 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I honestly had not heard of the "invitation to treat" clause. Must have missed it, can you show me all the posts I have missed?BEARS DEN? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 BEARS DEN?Any proposal such as the CVA proposal is in law what is called an "invitation to treat". An offer to buy a house, anything. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Any proposal such as the CVA proposal is in law what is called an "invitation to treat". An offer to buy a house, anything.But when you pay a sum of £250k for exclusivity, that legally entitles you to extra rights.When you sign to buy a house from plot and pay a deposit, you and the seller have protection from the cancellation of this contract. Plenty of folk have been hugely impacted, some ruined by that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrongbowLoyal. 36 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Well said Boss.. Folk need to look at facts before acting like a fucking idiot!!!To many folk in here acting like or actual Tims. Belt the fuck up bears Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 But when you pay a sum of £250k for exclusivity, that legally entitles you to extra rights.When you sign to buy a house from plot and pay a deposit, you and the seller have protection from the cancellation of this contract. Plenty of folk have been hugely impacted, some ruined by that.No, it protects you from being gazumped, except in Scotland, where deposits are not required.But in Company Law, exclusivity just means no deal will be discussed with any other party. The vehicle used to actual transact can be anything the buying & selling parties agree on.Green took off his Sevco 5088 hat, and put on his brand new Sevco Scotland hat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fools Gold 488 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 No, it protects you from being gazumped, except in Scotland, where deposits are not required.But in Company Law, exclusivity just means no deal will be discussed with any other party. The vehicle used to actual transact can be anything the buying & selling parties agree on.Green took off his Sevco 5088 hat, and put on his brand new Sevco Scotland hat.Not according to this mate:-http://www.darlingtons.com/blog/?p=369 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 No, it protects you from being gazumped, except in Scotland, where deposits are not required.But in Company Law, exclusivity just means no deal will be discussed with any other party. The vehicle used to actual transact can be anything the buying & selling parties agree on.Green took off his Sevco 5088 hat, and put on his brand new Sevco Scotland hat.Sorry, just got what you mean.Yes, this would be correct if the exclusivity contract was taken out in Greens name. But if it was taken out in SevCo 5088's name then obviously it requires full authorisation before the assets can be passed to an unlinked company. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coop troop 106 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Sorry, just got what you mean.Yes, this would be correct if the exclusivity contract was taken out in Greens name. But if it was taken out in SevCo 5088's name then obviously it requires full authorisation before the assets can be passed to an unlinked company.I've never seen an exclusivity agreement without pretty clear termination clauses. They are not the end game in respect to acquisitions, and can easily be removed given the correct legal language.WATP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I've never seen an exclusivity agreement without pretty clear termination clauses.They are not the end game in respect to acquisitions, and can easily be removed given the correct legal language.WATPThat may very well be the case, but the question has to be asked. Was the exclusivity agreement ripped up or amended.I doubt Whyte has a case here, but we need answers to questions. We can argue one way or the other until we are blue in the face, until we get some honesty and facts, we are running blind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Sorry, just got what you mean.Yes, this would be correct if the exclusivity contract was taken out in Greens name. But if it was taken out in SevCo 5088's name then obviously it requires full authorisation before the assets can be passed to an unlinked company.Not if Green was the only director at the time.Which he was.And as it was only an offer; a proposal, not an actual contract, it was never put into force; never enacted. But instead replaced with the one reported on by D&p. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
racoon 66 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 boss we werent sold we never went anywhere to get sold Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 boss we werent sold we never went anywhere to get soldI have no idea what you mean; we tend to talk English on this board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
racoon 66 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 sorry mitre mould i'm new to the site but you just make me angry and the last rangers man that made me angry was davie cooper cause i would never see him again.no offence to davie just my thoughts Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StornowayBlue 630 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I've never seen an exclusivity agreement without pretty clear termination clauses.They are not the end game in respect to acquisitions, and can easily be removed given the correct legal language.WATPUnless you are Walter SmithI amn't genned up on the laws but this exclusivity payment secured Sevco 5088 a safety net for the inevitable CVA knockback. It was this agreement that meant Walter's bid was knocked back, despite being of more value to the creditors!The agreement couldn't have been so watertight though that it could prevent Green from saying, hang on a minute, I want to change the company name while I'm at it. There were silent partners though it seems and we need to know if that has a lasting effect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonbryce 63 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Unless you are Walter SmithI amn't genned up on the laws but this exclusivity payment secured Sevco 5088 a safety net for the inevitable CVA knockback. It was this agreement that meant Walter's bid was knocked back, despite being of more value to the creditors!The agreement couldn't have been so watertight though that it could prevent Green from saying, hang on a minute, I want to change the company name while I'm at it. There were silent partners though it seems and we need to know if that has a lasting effect. Any contract can be changed by mutual agreement between the parties, so if Duff & Phelps and Sevco 5088 are happy for it to be sold to Sevco Scotland, that can happen, regardless of what the contract says. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_ger 1,454 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Whyte has just been told by a judge that he should pay £18 million in damages to Ticketus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.