InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 654
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/22/2012

Re: Drunken Sailor post# 28897

Tuesday, 10/16/2012 5:39:25 AM

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 5:39:25 AM

Post# of 42999
Am afraid there is evidence that the fees have been accepted DS, but you seem in blind denial. MRT have said that the relevant fees have been "paid" which means that they have been accepted. You see you can have due or payable, due and payable and paid, but not paid and not accepted in this case.

The two relevant fees that must accompany the application form are of course, the application fee which is for the application and the rental fee including GST which is for........well why don't you answer that.

Now I do like your argument that it is the law as it has the semblance of a constructive argument, but alas I dont think you will be able to quote the relevant section of the Mining Act that says the rental for a licence extension must be paid up front, irrespective of whether they grant the Licence extension or not.

The reason being that of course it is a practice direction issued by MRT and not the law and for the sake of GSLM and all EEGC and TXO shareholders, I am sure that you will delighted to know that an equitable doctrine would take preference over a practice direction any time of day.
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.