Steps wrote: That pretty well sums it up... |
SaltyC wrote: Good god, this thread gets more bizarre by the minute! I have given up trying to interpret, let alone respond to, the bizarre "why isn't the world the way I want it" postings from the bull artist formally known as Pugwash, but now we have someone who can't tell the difference between the Treaty of Waitangi and a commercial lease agreement. God help us all! |
SaltyC wrote: Good god, this thread gets more bizarre by the minute! I have given up trying to interpret, let alone respond to, the bizarre "why isn't the world the way I want it" postings from the bull artist formally known as Pugwash, but now we have someone who can't tell the difference between the Treaty of Waitangi and a commercial lease agreement. God help us all! |
Rozboon wrote:
Pretty much, a document that was written up by a bunch of colonialists who were out to shaft everyone and the other party was a loose collective of barely literate folk who didn't comprehend many of the concepts they were supposedly signing up to. Talk about lacking "meeting of the minds". |
v8-coupe wrote: Simple question really and I would really like to know why one legal document can be treated differently to another under the legal process. Perhaps one of you two can give me a sensible answer relating to law rather than personal opinions and attacks. Take care and have a good day. Cheers. |
Rozboon wrote:
Put simply, by modern legal standards the treaty wouldn't constitute a legal document (in the form of a binding contract) because the document itself and the circumstance it was agreed to under lacks several elements that are considered key to a valid contract. One of these elements is called "meeting of the minds", also referred to as mutual agreement - the essence of this is that both parties understand what they are commiting to and that the terms are interpreted the same way by both parties. In order for the treaty to be used as the basis for all of the modern litigation that has become associated with it, some sort of legal interpretation has to have happened, however there is much disagreement about what was intended by the various parts of it (i.e. the meaning of "sovereignty" in the context of that document). The lease agreement, however, was no doubt prepared and reviewed by legal types, and the whole point of a written legal contract is to remove as much ambiguity as possible and set the terms of the agreement out in black and white. What Development Auckland has essentially done here is tried to argue that they meant something else (under the "clean and tidy" clause of the agreement) to what was understood by Mobil, hence the disagreement, but what the courts have more or less held here is that if you want it as part of the contract you need to explicitly include it. postscript: I am not a lawyer, I just have a passing fascination with legalese... |
Tasman and Golden Bay snapper still running hot We are not far away from daylight... Read More >
Variety is the spice of life On one recent trip, the plan was to spend a... Read More >
Fish where the fish are! Catching fish or just going fishing? I tackle this issue... Read More >
Thoughtful tactics required for better fish Over the course of each year the fishing varies,... Read More >