Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Why/do you actually think that?
It's one thing to say the clause should have been written that way, it's another entirely to say "I know how the clause was written, but it's dumb and shouldn't apply".
If you're saying the former, that's a stance I can understand, if it's the latter, that's a pretty unreasonable stance.
|
100% the former. I think the clause was poorly written as is.
However, I'm just commenting on intent, and what I feel is the "spirit" of the law. Just discussion that doesn't have anything to do with the actual legality of what is currently occurring.
Basically, I think that because the Buyer controls the price of the product, the profitability of the contract doesn't change with a carbon tax. The Owner raises his price by X amount because of carbon tax, the Buyer raises his price by X amount, the consumer pays X more. No profitability is affected if this is the case.
If the government, as an example, caps the price that the Buyer can sell electricity at, THAT would be a change in law that would drastically affect profitability. This is a case where I think it would be a legitimate use of the "change in law" clause.
Again, just to re-emphasize, the NDP government has no case, and they should have expected this based on the agreement that was signed. I'm just saying it's a loophole more than a feature.