An appeal is to ensure that correct judicial process was followed, not to have a re-trial, no?
Your question and statement is spot on. Judicial process is hearing the facts, applying the law and adjudicating based on the facts and the law.
The legal definition of waiver is "the renunciation, repudiation, abandonment, or surrender of some claim, right, privilege, or of the opportunity to take advantage of some select, irregular- Vity, or wrong."
The waiver is not implied. It is part of the record. It is central to the amended complaint.
So what the court must ask is the following, "If GDSI waived the conditions precedent, can they recover for damages since they waived the condition precedent of the truthfulness of Rontan's representation and the amount of debt?"
GDSI may argue that a condition precedent is an event that must occur before the parties are obligated to perform. Only GDSI had the right to waive the conditions precedent. As a result of the waiver, did they waive the ability to collect on the condition conected to that condition precedent.
A legal example and an on point example would be you contract to buy a house. A condition precedent is that the house has no liens. The buyer finds out that the house has a lien before closing. The buyer insists on closing. Can the buyer now recover for damages related to the lien? In law, the question is did you get what you bargained for. Since GDSI clearly knew before closing about the undisclosed tax liabilities, will the court decide that those tax liabilities were part of the bargain. If so, case closed.
Very interesting case. Remember, the judge is the judge and not an advocate for either party. Did the judge apply the law correctly?
For the record, I hope GDSI wins. Bill has worked on this for a long time and without the lawsuit, there isn't much here.
