Gazumping occurs where there is non-enforceable agreement (at...

Gazumping occurs where there is non-enforceable agreement (at law, and not at equity) between a seller and a buyer and another buyer offers a higher price and the seller accepts that higher price. The first buyer can do nothing about it at law. However, he may have an equitable remedy against the seller.

What MLX needs at law is a legally enforceable agreement. It says it has one. Let the battle begin.

I have not really followed the matter, but I would initially rely on 2 things: 1. what MLX has said about having entered into a binding agreement and 2. why would a company like MLX go to all that trouble without having TAM tied up? Putting those 2 things together leans me MLX's way.

As regards business acumen in the mining game, you don't get much better than Peter Newton, the non-exec Chairman of MLX.

Every contract has conditions most of which are standard. Then there are conditions precedent that may apply, and if they do, have to be satisfied before the contract/transfer can be completed eg , subject to finance or the sale of an asset or approvals from a government department or soil testing etc etc.