Ann: Litigation Update, page-76

Mate I'd say that is a very defensive reaction, I just believe what youve referenced is irrelvamt to the case in point. Hate to say it but its what someone would say who has never studied law would say. I've sat, studied and submitted papers. I know that whilst we have the laws and statutes regarding leases, permits etc. The judge will look to the actions of both parties to determine whether there was a contract vis a vis the permit and lease and the actions and rights of both parties to carry out those actions and whether they were legally carried out.

It's really simple. If we say that at any time governments can change its mind on any permit and lease and the courts consider governments are within their legal rights to do so is a bad day for everyone. The court will take into account the rights coveined in law and whether these rights are being observed, or eroded.

As I've observed in the UK an example of franchises / licenses to operate a railway company are in some cases being cancelled but at a cost to the governement. Yes the government has the right to cancel contracts etc but has to compensate.

But to your point about having done research. I think your comments are naive at best saying I need to do research. I do question seriously question your interpretation of the law. If you want I'll sit down for 10mins this afternoon and critique your arguement.

Otherwise let those of us that have studied law at an academic level at least critic what you've written. If you don't like that then don't post.

This is a forum for discussion