Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
As I'm sure you know, there are many reasons why a contract or certain provisions of a contract might be found void: unconsiability, inconsistency with the Human Rights Code or Laboir Standards Act, etc.
Of course, the PPAs don't appear to be contracts, at least in the ordinary sense. And they likely raise certain public law issues as well. I Truly don't knowhow much merit there is to the Province's claim or position. I'm glad that we have so many experienced lawyers on CalgaryPuck who are so confident that they do know.
|
Not a contract? In the ordinary sense? Not sure what you think this is, but it is clearly a contractual issue.
The response from the government is baffling because the position seems to be that it didn't know the provision existed, or that it isn't "fair" or that it was included "last minute". None of which would hold any merit in contract. (Unless they think the companies were acting fraudulently, inserting the language into the governments own agreements! I don't think even the NDP are saying that).
Now, if the argument is that the language is vague and doesn't support termination (I haven't read the agreement), or that there isn't
proof that the change in law made these agreements less profitable, I guess there is a chance. But even there, it doesn't sound like a difficult hurdle for Capital Power et al. to clear.