Apology to FFFacts, Robert and the board. You guys are right I had it wrong. I would never intentionally post wrong information on purpose. I do understand the case is not about challenging the conservator or the SPSPA. It's about good faith and dealings. I have never heard the statement of an “Implicit Contract.” So, I said,
"There was NO VERBAL agreement therefore there is no “Implicit Contract.”
Barron helped me understand.
"Implied good faith and dealings."
Quote: "The case is about common law contracts between the buyer and seller of share certificates. An intrinsic property of that contract is the implied good faith and dealings. Lamberth originally dismissed this claim due to HERA, but was overruled by the appeals court. HERA cannot override common law contract claims such as this." End of Quote
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
