Print Page | Close Window

Mobil escapes $10m tank farm cleanup - NZ.

Printed From: The Fishing Website
Category: General Forums
Forum Name: Politics - Have your say
Forum Description: Have your say about the future of recreational fishing, marine reserves etc
URL: https://www.fishing.net.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=118378
Printed Date: 29 Mar 2024 at 8:15pm


Topic: Mobil escapes $10m tank farm cleanup - NZ.
Posted By: PriceofFish
Subject: Mobil escapes $10m tank farm cleanup - NZ.
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 6:53am
Another example of KIWI intellectual incompetence  - Yesterdays NZ Herald.

Oil giant Mobil has escaped a $10 million bill for the clean-up of a heavily contaminated area of Auckland's Wynyard Quarter after winning an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Publicly-owned Waterfront Auckland must now also pay Mobil close to $1 million in court costs for its failed attempt to get the oil company to foot the bill.

Mobil Oil leased two properties in Auckland's waterfront 'tank farm' for more than 50 years.

When Mobil's lease for the two sites ended in 2011, it was found the land they were on had been heavily contaminated.

While it was established the company was not solely responsible for contamination to the land - other oil companies as previous tenants and neighbouring tenants all contributed too - Waterfront Auckland claimed Mobil had to deliver the land in a completely "uncontaminated condition" at the end of its lease term.


The 5 Kiwi Judges presiding over this case should be sent to Invercargill, Gisborne,Whangarei or some other shiithole in New Zealand to work it outLOL almost forgot HamiltonShocked



-------------
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.



Replies:
Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 7:39am
I think Waterfront Auckland have to share the blame here, if they had been reasonable and asked for a contribution towards the clean up they may have done better.  Insisting Mobil foot the bill for all of it, including the stuff they weren't responsible for, was never going to stick but they battled on with it through the courts wasting money that could have been spent cleaning up the mess.

When you move into a rental property the landlord expects to get it back in the same condition it was when you rented it.  They don't expect it to nave a new roof and be repainted, which is what Waterfront Auckland were asking for.  Much as I do think Mobil should have paid towards the clean up I can see why they fought the case, as becoming responsible for "completely decontaminating" the site could have been a massive liability.


Posted By: Marligator
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 8:36am
From what I have seen when the court awards costs against the initiator of the legal action (WaterFront Auckland in this case) it usually means they had a very flimsy case at best. If it is a close run thing then the courts often do not award costs either way and if the initiator is clearly correct they will often award costs on top of any penalties awarded against the defendant.
 
So my take on this is that Waterfront Auckland did not really have a case against Mobil.
 
Also Puggy those judges are not dumb people, it is not just 1 but 5 very senior judges who made this decision and they would have made a "informed" decision based on the full information given to them not just the little bits the media want us to hear.


-------------
http://www.legasea.co.nz" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 9:07am
This has been going on for some time.. I think Kevin and Marl.. hit the nail on the head...
Blame the lawyers...or those who maybe didnt follow their advice...going for the full amount could not stand up....but if the case went for what they where due for  (IF Mobil had refused to come to the table for their share) that would most properly have won ....
So now we have Mobil walk away and rate payer pick up the bill... all because people got greedy.


Posted By: OuttaHere
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 11:16am
Award of costs is interesting, normally you just get "standard" costs which tend to actually be a fraction of the actual bill, if they're getting their full costs then it will be because the case was weak to start with, Mobil pointed out that the case was weak, and there may have been a good-faith offer from Mobil to settle it for an amount considered reasonable that was rejected by WA.
 
All speculation of course.


Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 12:09pm
Of course, one of the big problems here is the total unaccountably of bodies such as Waterfront Auckland.  It's easy to pursue a weak case on the off chance of winning if you don't have to pay for it and won't be held to account if you fail.

Mobil were awarded $1million in costs, so we can probably assume that Waterfront Auckland spent a similar amount in legal fees.  That's $2million or so of ratepayers money wasted.  Heads should roll and people should get sacked, but we all know what will actually happen -nothing.  They will just continue to take their big fat salaries while delivering more crap outcomes.  This is the problem across all Auckland council connected bodies, and probably most public bodies around the country.


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 12:33pm
Originally posted by Marligator Marligator wrote:


From what I have seen when the court awards costs against the initiator of the legal action (WaterFront Auckland in this case) it usually means they had a very flimsy case at best. If it is a close run thing then the courts often do not award costs either way and if the initiator is clearly correct they will often award costs on top of any penalties awarded against the defendant.
 
So my take on this is that Waterfront Auckland did not really have a case against Mobil.
 
Also Puggy those judges are not dumb people, it is not just 1 but 5 very senior judges who made this decision and they would have made a "informed" decision based on the full information given to them not just the little bits the media want us to hear.



Maybe. However I believe many of these so called learned Judges live in cloud cuckoo land judging (pun intended) by some of the decisions we have seen lately. The case was fought over legal semantics as is normally the case. It just happens the defendants Lawyers had the better gift of the gab than the other side. Do not forget the council had won once. It was in the higher court where the Judges are really out of touch with reality and real life after living in the rarified air of their own world that the decision was reversed. Mobil was there for fifty odd years, long enough to warrant a clean up. This is an example of why I do not respect legal documents and the Legal profession in general. Nothing is black and white even if it says so in writing. There is always some smart arse Lawyer that will argue black is white and white is black. Throw in Judges who can quote you the law backwards but have absolutely no commonsense or life experience and some of the outcomes are ludicrous.
The law was designed as a tool to help protect the people. However, more and more it is being used as a club by business, Government and other vested interests to control and manipulate the very people it is supposed to protect. More and more people are being forced to prove their innocence rather than the other way around.

-------------
Legasea Legend Member


Posted By: Marligator
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:10pm
V8 I know what you are saying, but what we do not know with this judgement is whether it was a majority or unanimous decision reached by the 5 judges, if it is a unanimous decision then there were some serious failings in Waterfront's case/arguments and my suspicion given Mobil was awarded costs of a $1M it was a unanimous decision.

-------------
http://www.legasea.co.nz" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: PriceofFish
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:23pm
The main issue as I see it is how a Kiwi run court case involving mostly Kiwi elements ( prosecution, defense and judging panel) construct a result that gives MOBIL International a get out of jail card! 

Sure the total responsibilities should not all fall in Mobil's plate but they certainly do have a degree of responsibility.....zero according to the Kiwi judging panel! 

The site in case has been a transit area for years and years 50+ with all sorts of dangerous products being handled there; chemicals, cement, petroleum etc....

Spillages years ago used to be hosed into the "sparkling" Waitemata.Smile 

Nota. Germany has very strict environmental controls actively in place that insist that the companies that have used sites restore the locations to a set of certified standards. In other words to a safe non-toxic condition.


-------------
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.


Posted By: pompey
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:27pm
I don't know the facts, however,  the land is contaminated and Mobil must have contributed to the contamination. In my opinion they are liable for at least part of the clean up cost. I wonder if they feel responsible in any way and are prepared to make a without prejudice offer. 
Waterfront Auckland have had poor advice or simply thought they MAY win and what the heck, it's only ratepayers money.
Regarding judges. I am certainly not confident five judges could hear evidence in a case and all make the right decision. Legal case history is littered with absent minded judges decisions.
As usual the big losers are the ratepayers and the winners, the lawyers.


Posted By: Southern_Jez
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:31pm
You guys know you can read the full judgements of most cases that come out of the high court right? I know it will impact on your ability to go off half cocked and what not, but still ... 

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments" rel="nofollow - http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mobil-oil-new-zealand-limited-v-development-auckland-limited-formerly-auckland-waterfront-development-agency-limited/at_download/fileDecision" rel="nofollow - https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mobil-oil-new-zealand-limited-v-development-auckland-limited-formerly-auckland-waterfront-development-agency-limited/at_download/fileDecision


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:41pm
Where the current container terminal is.(mechanics bay).never heard or read about shell contaminating the ground there.why has Mobil contaminated the ground?


Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 2:05pm
Originally posted by Southern_Jez Southern_Jez wrote:

You guys know you can read the full judgements of most cases that come out of the high court right? I know it will impact on your ability to go off half cocked and what not, but still ... 

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments" rel="nofollow - http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mobil-oil-new-zealand-limited-v-development-auckland-limited-formerly-auckland-waterfront-development-agency-limited/at_download/fileDecision" rel="nofollow - https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mobil-oil-new-zealand-limited-v-development-auckland-limited-formerly-auckland-waterfront-development-agency-limited/at_download/fileDecision

Thanks for the link, very interesting.  It seems that Development Auckland were clutching at straws somewhat by trying to imply that Mobil had any responsibilities based on the lease conditions.


Posted By: Southern_Jez
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 12:23pm
hahahaha seems like you post some facts and the thread dies ... LOL (need a "5hit stirrer" emoticon)


Posted By: PriceofFish
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 12:34pm
Originally posted by Southern_Jez Southern_Jez wrote:

hahahaha seems like you post some facts and the thread dies ... Clown (need a "5hit stirrer" emoticon)

What are you doing today then? LOL


-------------
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 1:15pm
 (need a "5hit stirrer" emoticon)

         


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 1:30pm
Originally posted by Southern_Jez Southern_Jez wrote:

hahahaha seems like you post some facts and the thread dies ... LOL (need a "5hit stirrer" emoticon)


Thanks for the link.
Worked my way through it and I was correct.
Legal semantics.
Once again it is a case of the law overriding commonsense to the detriment and expense of the public, tax and rate payer.
It appears the council was not even asking for the full estimated amount. Only one fifth.
Seems accountability is only for those who can not pay to avoid it.

-------------
Legasea Legend Member


Posted By: ww
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 1:38pm
In the spirit of not being scumbags they might have found some middle ground? Its not like $10m is going to hurt Mobil in the wallet, hope they take a big reputation hit on this. 


Posted By: PriceofFish
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 3:22pm
To V8 & WW - Your points are all good. 

For me I just can't understand how a New Zealand legal dispute fought between a group of Kiwi's could rule in favor of a Corporation (with a record of environmental disasters).

I would of HOPED that the legal firms  (both parties)  would of fought a legal dispute that wasn't decided by an interpretation of contractual clauses. Both Kiwi parties should of met and agreed that Mobil was liable for a reparation payment, in doing so they would of taken the responsibilities & costs from the rate payers and charged the business that contributed to the polluting of the site. 
This decision really shows how intellectually lost many NZ companies (government bodies) are, examples operating everywhere here in Kiwiland.  Any decision must be made in favor of the citizen in these instances and not corporate business.


-------------
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.


Posted By: Southern_Jez
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 3:37pm
You cant look at a case such as this with emotion (something done a lot in this particular forum). NZ companies are doing the same overseas, Fonterra, Alliance, Zespri, and many others in primary industries that export significant amounts in global trade all exploit various local laws to suit their own ends (our timber trade to Japan has killed off multiple small Japanese towns that relied on that industry for survival, including the town my wife is from originally, about 25km north of Nagano). Fact of the matter is that the original lease was not written well enough, and this was exploited by the company to their advantage.

Do I think Mobil should have got off scott free? No I don't, however to the letter of their original lease they fulfilled their obligations of leaving the site in a "clean and tidy" manner. (who the hell pays these clowns to write such loose terms in contracts anyway?!?!)


Posted By: SaltyC
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 2:02pm
Originally posted by PriceofFish PriceofFish wrote:

For me I just can't understand how a New Zealand legal dispute fought between a group of Kiwi's could rule in favor of a Corporation (with a record of environmental disasters).

I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of nonsense you have posted yet.

You are proposing that a decision based on the law and the legal agreements entered into between two parties should be decided based on who the parties are not on the correct application of the law!

Really, that is mind numbingly stupid.

So you go to court in a dispute with someone and you present the documentation and the court says......

Nah, we don't like party "B" so we are just going to ignore the law and real in favour of party "A".

Whether you agree with the outcome in this case or not you cannot possibly really propose that we ignore the law and make all future decisions based on who we like!


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 2:27pm
They only talk about contamination at wynyard. But have yet to read what the contamination actually is.

They avoid that detail because if the true level & toxicity was revealed it would not look good.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 3:18pm
Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

They only talk about contamination at wynyard. But have yet to read what the contamination actually is.

They avoid that detail because if the true level & toxicity was revealed it would not look good.
quite right there John,what about contamination from the cement works?or for year the slip yards in St Mary bay from hauling out ferries etc?vosses yard and the burn off in the incinerator that to disguise the pollution they use to pump steam up the chimney.The whole area will or must contain some form of contamination as it was a very busy commercial area.
Instead of chasing Mobil,when is the council going to chase away people sleeping cars  and decimating the area.Interesting drive on a Friday/Saturday night.


Posted By: hookerpuka
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 3:25pm
Originally posted by PriceofFish PriceofFish wrote:

The 5 Kiwi Judges presiding over this case should be sent to Invercargill, Gisborne,Whangarei or some other shiithole in New Zealand to work it outLOL almost forgot HamiltonShocked


 Hey Cock stain... I'm from whangarei and take offence to that dumb **** comment. Whangarei and northland are stunning and what's more. there's very few people complaining they can't catch fish up here... Although I'm sure if you moved up this way there would be 1. 

 On the real topic though, how the hell can you tell a company that has not been responsible for all of the contamination they have to clean it completely up... Regardless of how much money they have that's just not right, previous tenants and also residing neighboring tenants are also at fault... 


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 4:06pm
"hookerpuka' this might sum up POF nicely,which one POF,tweedle dee or tweedle dumb?




Posted By: PriceofFish
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 4:24pm
Originally posted by SaltyC SaltyC wrote:

Originally posted by PriceofFish PriceofFish wrote:

For me I just can't understand how a New Zealand legal dispute fought between a group of Kiwi's could rule in favor of a Corporation (with a record of environmental disasters).

I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of nonsense you have posted yet.

You are proposing that a decision based on the law and the legal agreements entered into between two parties should be decided based on who the parties are not on the correct application of the law!

Really, that is mind numbingly stupid.

So you go to court in a dispute with someone and you present the documentation and the court says......

Nah, we don't like party "B" so we are just going to ignore the law and real in favour of party "A".

Whether you agree with the outcome in this case or not you cannot possibly really propose that we ignore the law and make all future decisions based on who we like!

SaltyC - your reply to my post would be your most badly thought-out piece I've yet read from you ( there that's tit for twat).

So you think that KIWI Law has any value outside of NZ...as Judge Rinder says - MORON -

- NZ Law vs International Corporate Law ? lets give the corporate an away win shall we? NZ Taxpayers will pay.

- 50 year old lease agreements with terms and conditions that are NO longer relevant in 2016..Mobile hides behind rusty old lease arrangements crying irrelevance etc... NZ Taxpayer will pay.


- Previous disgraceful environmental business is not unknown to MOBILE. So let them off here in NZ as the Kiwi taxpayer will stump up.

It really shows what the problem is with kiwi's who have no experience or understand what is happening outside of NZ.
For what its worth Mobil wouldn't think of taking the "people" to court in most other countries for such a pathetic amount however NZ is an exception, know why?  because most other countries would tell Mobil to ****off, but NO not NZ we'll show the world that we are full on integrity even if it is bottom draw issue!

Its a bit like letting the serial RAPIST (Mobile) off his 100th conviction because the plaintive was too old and not all there!  


-------------
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 4:25pm
Received in my inbox from a member as too afraid of getting a ban

vote from a nameless member voted for tweedle dumbest. 


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 5:39pm
Pof  If u dont understand what Salty is saying ..... let me put it this way
You propose that we have a legal system that makes decisions based on corporate political and social OPINIONS..A system that before a ruling is made has to assess anyone of the above depending on who is waiving the biggest stick... and not the legislation made by our elected representatives.
OR in plain English, u wish to have a system based on the whims of some banana dictator like Adi Amin
Which to have such a system we must dismantle our Westminster system of law and government, right down the the Magna Carta  .. That means ALL our parliament, local body government, right down to how our local fish / car/ knitting clubs administer themselves

Now since this is what u propose.. consciously or not.. the next question is ... since Adi Amin has died, who do you suggest instead?

That IS the implication of your idioic comments


Posted By: PriceofFish
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 6:01pm
Originally posted by Steps Steps wrote:

Pof  If u dont understand what Salty is saying ..... let me put it this way
You propose that we have a legal system that make decisions based on corporate political and social OPINIONS..As system that before a ruling is made has to assess anyone of the above depending on who is waiving the biggest stick... and not the legislation made by our elected representatives.
OR in plain English, u wish to have a system based on the whims of some banana dictator like Adi Armin
Which to have such a system be must dismantle our Westminster system of law and government, right down the the Magna Carta  .. That mean ALL our parliament, local body government  right down to how our local fish / car/ knitting clubs administer themselves

Now since this is what u propose.. consciously or not.. the next question is ... sionce Adi Armin has died, who do you suggest instead?

That IS the implications of your idioic comments

STEPS - thank you for explaining the "world" to me. I would say that it is ABOUT TIME that the Magna Carta - BIG LAUGH COMING - and Westminster system of law be looked into.
I wonder why in the world should NZ base a legal system that was constructed to suit the "workings" of the British Empire, the number one military power....does NZ have anything in common with THAT?


-------------
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.


Posted By: Catchelot
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 6:05pm
Originally posted by hookerpuka hookerpuka wrote:

Originally posted by PriceofFish PriceofFish wrote:

The 5 Kiwi Judges presiding over this case should be sent to Invercargill, Gisborne,Whangarei or some other shiithole in New Zealand to work it outLOL almost forgot HamiltonShocked


 Hey Cock stain... I'm from whangarei and take offence to that dumb **** comment. Whangarei and northland are stunning and what's more. there's very few people complaining they can't catch fish up here... Although I'm sure if you moved up this way there would be 1. 

 On the real topic though, how the hell can you tell a company that has not been responsible for all of the contamination they have to clean it completely up... Regardless of how much money they have that's just not right, previous tenants and also residing neighboring tenants are also at fault... 

Well said Mike, I bit my tongue on those comments and I also have to say WTF has this topic got to do with fishing or fisheries management?


Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 6:28pm
Quite right Catchelot, so I shall move this to the politics forum. Feel free to continue the discussion there (well, here.)

-------------
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: PriceofFish
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 6:38pm
 I'd say that the NZ Legal system,government,farming and education could be looked into and IMPROVED.

You guys do remember that Britain BANKRUPTED  New Zealand in the 1970's so I fail to see why NZ shouldn't consider a more MODERN system for New Zealands future.

Model(s) that are 100's of years old should be looked at really closely.


-------------
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.


Posted By: PriceofFish
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 7:17pm


-------------
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 7:41pm


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2016 at 11:10pm
Think we should change the name Mobil to the real name Exxon Mobil to put things in perspective. Exxon mobil is one of the most profitable trading companies in the world.

They leased the site. But not only did fuel from coastal tankers come ashore here ,but every Chemical Tanker that visited Auckland berthed here. A huge array of toxic chemicals was pumped off these vessels,and from time to time small spillages occured during pump changes. Most on to hardfill.
So surely Mobil Exxon should bear at least some liability.
But no, the rate or tax payer will foot the bill.Very poor and shows the spineless ,possibly bought system we have.
Laws are make only for the poor

Remember the Exxon Valdez that ran aground in Prince William sound. Same company.That cost billions to clean up,yet it is said some claims agreed to for environmental restoration that still needs implementing have yet to be paid.Instead they were fought in the courts
At that time it was estimated that $500 million was 12 hours revenue for the company. In perspective what is $10 million.
Hate to think that when full scale offshore seabed oil exploration begins here,and if we had a major spill just who would foot the bill given that this precedent has been established here.

 


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2016 at 9:44am
I would say that it is ABOUT TIME that the Magna Carta - BIG LAUGH COMING - and Westminster system of law be looked into.
I
wonder why in the world should NZ base a legal system that was
constructed to suit the "workings" of the British Empire, the number one
military power....does NZ have anything in common with THAT?

You are showing your ignorance now
There are 2 basic systems modern systems of Law around the world ..(not counting absolute dictatorship power) the Westminster and the French
Simply put one you.... are presumed innocent till proven guilty.. the other you have to prove your innocence
Both have historically been evolved into modern forms of justice systems.

So you want to throw the current system out simply because it has historical evolution from Britain...
And either go banana republic or French?
It is easy sit back behind a keyboard and spout off criticisms, whine and moan ...
And not put forward ANYTHING to replace it with....
Which is basically puts you by your own definition as a Anarchist.

At least do your homework before making fun of others.



Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2016 at 12:31pm
Originally posted by hookerpuka hookerpuka wrote:

Originally posted by PriceofFish PriceofFish wrote:

<p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: line; transition-property: color, , border-color, opacity; transition-duration: 0.2s; max-width: inherit; color: rgb51, 51, 51; font-family: Calibri, Candara, Segoe, "Segoe UI", Optima, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 21px; -: initial; -attachment: initial; -size: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; -: initial; -repeat: initial;">The 5 Kiwi Judges presiding over this case should be sent to Invercargill, Gisborne,Whangarei or some other shiithole in New Zealand to work it outLOL almost forgot HamiltonShocked




 Hey Cock stain... I'm from whangarei and take offence to that dumb **** comment. Whangarei and northland are stunning and what's more. there's very few people complaining they can't catch fish up here... Although I'm sure if you moved up this way there would be 1. 

 On the real topic though, how the hell can you tell a company that has not been responsible for all of the contamination they have to clean it completely up... Regardless of how much money they have that's just not right, previous tenants and also residing neighboring tenants are also at fault... 


Reading the link posted.
They were asking for one fifth of the estimated clean up bill.
That being ten million out of an estimated fifty million clean up cost.
We sops in the rateable area were probably going to be hit with the balance. Now we will be hit with the total. Plus some legal costs on top of those already spent. Lawyers/business win. Tax/rate payers lose. Business as usual. Pun intended.

-------------
Legasea Legend Member


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2016 at 12:52pm
Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Think we should change the name Mobil to the real name Exxon Mobil to put things in perspective. Exxon mobil is one of the most profitable trading companies in the world.

They leased the site. But not only did fuel from coastal tankers come ashore here ,but every Chemical Tanker that visited Auckland berthed here. A huge array of toxic chemicals was pumped off these vessels,and from time to time small spillages occured during pump changes. Most on to hardfill.
So surely Mobil Exxon should bear at least some liability.
But no, the rate or tax payer will foot the bill.Very poor and shows the spineless ,possibly bought system we have.
Laws are make only for the poor

Remember the Exxon Valdez that ran aground in Prince William sound. Same company.That cost billions to clean up,yet it is said some claims agreed to for environmental restoration that still needs implementing have yet to be paid.Instead they were fought in the courts
At that time it was estimated that $500 million was 12 hours revenue for the company. In perspective what is $10 million.
Hate to think that when full scale offshore seabed oil exploration begins here,and if we had a major spill just who would foot the bill given that this precedent has been established here.


Think Tauranga not long ago.
That cost the tax/rate payer tens of millions and that was just a container wreck.
It should have cost NZ nothing for the clean up as the boat was at fault. Not NZ.
We have some piddly weak laws that let the company get off very very lightly.
Once again. That clean up should have cost NZ nothing except in voluntary labour to clean the coastal area and save wild/marine life.

-------------
Legasea Legend Member


Posted By: OuttaHere
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2016 at 2:36pm
I'm just gonna throw it in there but "live by the sword, die by the sword"
Development Auckland were the ones to call in the lawyers and get all litigious, if they were prepared to do that then they damn well should have had their ducks in a row in the first place, legally speaking.
$100000 spent on some good contract law a long time ago would have meant they were $10 million better off today. Calling in the lawyers after the fact when you should have called them in the first place is always going to end in tears.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2016 at 8:33am
That pretty well sums it up...


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2016 at 12:35pm
Originally posted by Steps Steps wrote:

That pretty well sums it up...

To put another the cat among the Pigeons.
There is another well known document/agreement that seems to be constantly re-translated and re-interpreted on a regular basis. That document is over one hundred and fifty years old and NZ is paying for things that were not included in the original nor did it take into account "future uses" as described in the posted judgment link for the Mobil document.
Why is one treated differently to the other?
The old document has had a lot more included and attributed to it than was ever written down.
Why could those legal attributes, interpretations and re-interpretational procedures not be used on the Mobil document?
As we all know. In Law there is no black or white. Only shades of grey and the Lawyer with the best gift of the gab usually wins. Whether the judgement is correct or not.
The real winners from both those documents are the Lawyers and the real losers are the tax/rate payers. As usual.

-------------
Legasea Legend Member


Posted By: SaltyC
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2016 at 12:45pm
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!


Posted By: Finatic
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2016 at 12:59pm
Good god! I'll never get the minutes of my life back that I just spent reading through this threadLOL




-------------
What's the cheapest type of meat? Dear balls. They're under a buck.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2016 at 1:14pm
Ha Ha. Love him or hate him the Pugster does put up some topics that  get lots of reads and comments.

If it were fire wood i would rate Pugster.


Burn Quality----HOT

Burn duration --LONG

Availability ----Occasionally

LOLLOLLOL


Posted By: OuttaHere
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2016 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by SaltyC 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!
 
 
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".


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2016 at 5:08pm
Originally posted by SaltyC 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!
The world is still flat,fell over last night with my tin foil hat getting dented.


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2016 at 5:26pm
Originally posted by Rozboon Rozboon wrote:

Originally posted by SaltyC 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!

 
 
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".


You both miss the point.
The Treaty is a legal document. Does not matter whether it was a lease, rental agreement or hire purchase agreement. It is a legal document.
Since the seventies that legal document has been re-interpreted by various modern legal minds who have come up with their own ideas as to what the legal definition of the document and its scope is. Those legal interpretations change regularly.
My question was simply why one legal document can be rejigged to suit modern requirements, whereas there seems to be a belief that the Mobil document is old and badly written so therefore the council got what it deserved,
Why could this old Mobil document not be rejigged under current, modern laws/interpretations to represent the mood of the day? Ecological thoughts are different today than they were say forty years ago.
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.


-------------
Legasea Legend Member


Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2016 at 7:33pm
Because there is a big difference between a vague document written in two separate languages with in exact translations, and very broad terms, and a strictly legal, binding, document.

-------------
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: OuttaHere
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2016 at 9:44am
Originally posted by v8-coupe 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.
 
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... 


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2016 at 10:11am
This and the Rena have achieved the desired outcome. That is PRECEDENT set for future issues like these.


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2016 at 12:30pm
Originally posted by Rozboon Rozboon wrote:

Originally posted by v8-coupe 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.

 
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... 



Thank you.

-------------
Legasea Legend Member



Print Page | Close Window