don, you really need to clarify this....
"In my opinion it was fodder for IA in 2004. That's the time expiration that CVG had to get this going according to the agreement they had with MEM dated May-16 2002. They had two years from the initial agreement to start development. 9th clause."
what does this mean and where are you pulling it out of?
.......................................
"KRY's contract states that KRY has to follow the same timeline as stipulated in the CVG/MEM agreement. They couldn't because of no permit so CVG is in breach imo 4 years ago. A read of the force majeure leaves one to question whether this falls under some of the things listed in there. Time will tell"
where exactly does force majeure come into play here?
again don, you seem to be picking and choosing the parts of the contract you want to fit an agenda that is negative kry...imo you have repeatedly said things that were erroneuos and once confronted with facts that proved you wrong you move on to another negative statement with nothing to back it up.....i've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but it's getting difficult....
