Marty101
Well-Known Member
As others have said, I freak out whenever this thread re-appears on the first page, so sorry for bumping it!
It’s a bit difficult to get the head round exactly what’s been happening. We aren’t given the full terms of the contract and some of the judgments are a bit vague as to what the actual order made by the court ultimately is once the Court’s decision was made.
There actually seem to be at least 2 separate actions ongoing. The case which went to the “speedy trial” in April has case reference 000631 of 2018 (per the report from February 2019), but the case with the decision in March 2019 has case reference 000726 of 2018.
The 726 case is about determining the terms of a new contract entered into between SDI and us following on SDI matching Elite’s offer in July 2018. The creation of this new contract was provided for in the 2017 retail agreement. It’s been determined this new contract exists but its terms haven’t yet been finalised. In the March 2019 judgment, the Court interpreted things broadly in line with what SDI wanted, but the final order wasn’t published as far as I’m aware, and I’m not really clear what that means for what the new contract with SDI will include. No doubt a major issue will be whether this new contract includes the right for SDI to match subsequent offers again (which SDI argue it should.) This contract was determined to “exist” from 25th July 2018, although it's actual terms haven't been fully determined yet (at least per the published judgments.) Once its terms are finally determined, no doubt the next question becomes have we breached this new contract in some way since July 2018.
The 631 case originally related to whether a failure to allow SDI to match a subsequent September offer by Elite was a breach of the 2017 Retail agreement. The claim is for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, but the “speedy trial” isn’t dealing with damages. That question has been deferred until after the issues of declarator and injunctive relief have been decided. Declarator is an order by the court declaring something. In this case I imagine it is that the Elite contracts mentioned below breach the agreement with SDI. Injunctive relief is an order not to do something. In this case it will be not to operate in a way which continues to breach this contract, presumably.
In 631, the court has already determined we are in breach of the 2017 retail contract re failing to allow matching of the September offer, and has already granted permanent injunctions per the judgment of 24/10/18. The speedy trial relates to a request for further declarators and injunctions which SDI say are necessary/justifiable because they have now seen further agreements between RFC and Elite (Retail Units Agreement and the Elite/Hummel agreement.) They say we also failed to allow SDI to match these, and are accordingly in further breach of contract.
Ultimately 631 will also determine what damages are payable for the already established breach re the September 2018 offer, and potentially for the further breaches SDI allege if these are indeed found to be breaches following the speedy trial.
It’s a bit difficult to get the head round exactly what’s been happening. We aren’t given the full terms of the contract and some of the judgments are a bit vague as to what the actual order made by the court ultimately is once the Court’s decision was made.
There actually seem to be at least 2 separate actions ongoing. The case which went to the “speedy trial” in April has case reference 000631 of 2018 (per the report from February 2019), but the case with the decision in March 2019 has case reference 000726 of 2018.
The 726 case is about determining the terms of a new contract entered into between SDI and us following on SDI matching Elite’s offer in July 2018. The creation of this new contract was provided for in the 2017 retail agreement. It’s been determined this new contract exists but its terms haven’t yet been finalised. In the March 2019 judgment, the Court interpreted things broadly in line with what SDI wanted, but the final order wasn’t published as far as I’m aware, and I’m not really clear what that means for what the new contract with SDI will include. No doubt a major issue will be whether this new contract includes the right for SDI to match subsequent offers again (which SDI argue it should.) This contract was determined to “exist” from 25th July 2018, although it's actual terms haven't been fully determined yet (at least per the published judgments.) Once its terms are finally determined, no doubt the next question becomes have we breached this new contract in some way since July 2018.
The 631 case originally related to whether a failure to allow SDI to match a subsequent September offer by Elite was a breach of the 2017 Retail agreement. The claim is for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, but the “speedy trial” isn’t dealing with damages. That question has been deferred until after the issues of declarator and injunctive relief have been decided. Declarator is an order by the court declaring something. In this case I imagine it is that the Elite contracts mentioned below breach the agreement with SDI. Injunctive relief is an order not to do something. In this case it will be not to operate in a way which continues to breach this contract, presumably.
In 631, the court has already determined we are in breach of the 2017 retail contract re failing to allow matching of the September offer, and has already granted permanent injunctions per the judgment of 24/10/18. The speedy trial relates to a request for further declarators and injunctions which SDI say are necessary/justifiable because they have now seen further agreements between RFC and Elite (Retail Units Agreement and the Elite/Hummel agreement.) They say we also failed to allow SDI to match these, and are accordingly in further breach of contract.
Ultimately 631 will also determine what damages are payable for the already established breach re the September 2018 offer, and potentially for the further breaches SDI allege if these are indeed found to be breaches following the speedy trial.
Last edited: