sainsburys

Im confused to be honest. I thought they said once their application to change the delivery hours were rejected then thats where they have a right to terminate the contract. Thats what they been saying on court so what date is this cut off date?

 

Apparently Sainsburys done their closing summary beforfe lunch and after lunch Rovers will be doing theirs. Then thats it. Down to the judge who stated already at the start that she wont be making a decision sstraight away. I have read comments from people who attended who said she has had her head on her hands a lot where things are so confusing. She has her work cut out. I think Sainsburys has made it as confusing as possible because it will put doubt in the judges mind.

 

But they didn't terminate the contract
I would not think that rovers would apply for the delivery hours to be changed themselves if Sainsbury's had pulled out.
Either they did not communicate with rovers and hoped the deadline would come or when rovers did get the hours changed they had already made up there minds and dragged it out so they win both ways.
Surely rovers applied for a court hearing before the so called cut off date.
One thing for sure I'm shopping elsewhere I hope the other 29,000 odd that went to Wembley does the same.

 

Apparently they were loads of Rovers fans shopping at Sainsburys outside Wembley (must have been the part timers I guess)

 

The were not going to appeal the rejection of the extended hours. They informed the club they would not be continuing. However Rovers thought this was not reasonable and got a advice from a solicitor experienced in this sort of thing and he said there was a 60% chance of winning the appeal. Rovers went back to Sainsburys offering to pay for the appeal and Sainsburys still wasnt interested. As far as they were concerned they believed they could walk away. And they wanted to walk away as they were planning on shutting down several sites and saving money. They wanted out and the refusal for the extended hours was their get out clause. However Rovers thought it was not acceptable that they wouldnt want to appeal when the chances of winning was greater than losing. Rovers then issued the Writ basically forcing Sainsburys to appeal because Sainsburys not took reasonable steps to suceed with theextended hours applications. Not at this point Sainsburys should have said no and insisted they ended the contract here and fight the Writ. But the fact that they didnt challenge the Writ and agreed to make an appeal means that they didnt end the contract. At this point im sure that Sainsburys were hoping the appeal gets rejected too. But when it didnt, they have been since dragging their heels. Rovers need to prove that the time when Sainsburys believe they ended the contract was not the case. The fact that they agreed to appeal would be proof enough and the appeal was won. Its a mess. Im not getting my hopes up though.

 

Yes, I seen this too. But Sainsburys was outside Wembley stadium literally across the road and was literally next to the car park where tons of our coaches were. There was no other shops like this near by from what I could see. Compare the prices of Sainsburys to Wembley - you can buy a 4 pack of booze for £5 in Sainsburys and it cost more than £5 for a plastic cup of booze (not even a full pint). I would use Sainsburys too. Bare in mind it has already cost me over £250 in coach travel and match tickets. Then add money for food/drink too. Coaches didnt stop off in services either which left me short as I was planning on getting stuff in there!

I can see why people did use Sainsburys at Wembley. Made sense to me as a 1 off. I certainly wont be using them. Vile scum they are. I could always go in and get a trolly full of stuff and get to the till and put it on the belt and then just walk off leaving it their. That would be fun.

 

Sainsburys must be quaking in their boots with that attitude
‘Right everyone boycott Sainsburys (unless there is longer than a 5 minute walk to another shop)’

 

When is a decision expected? Will it be tomorrow or will it be next week?

 

I thought that Rovers appealed against the delivery hours and got them extended

 

Im sure there was a shop within 5 minutes. I certainly wouldnt look for one. I ended up buying a rather expensive burger and beer in Wembley!

 

No idea. Judge said as its complicated, wont be straight away! Thats all I know.

 

Yes they did as sainsburys were just sitting on their hands not doing anything .
Hours extended but sainsburys still want out.
Stinks

 

Lawyers for Bristol Rovers today made their closing arguments in the club's court battle with Sainsbury's over the future of the Memorial Stadium site.

David Matthias QC, for the club, told Mrs Justice Proudman that the supermarket giant had been in 'continuing and flagrant breach' of its commitment to Rovers to buy the site for £30m and redevelop it as a supermarket once the club moved to its planned new home.

He said the firm was wrong to treat its application to Bristol City Council, to vary the delivery hours the local authority had imposed when green-lighting plans for the superstore, as an 'appeal'.

The barrister also argued Sainsbury's was 'obliged' - under its agreement with Rovers - to challenge the council's refusal to change the hours.

Mr Matthias told the judge: "In our submission, the most we have to do is establish that, by the cut-off date, if they had complied with their obligations and not been in continuing and flagrant breach of those obligations, the conditions would have been satisfied."

He also said the supermarket chain should have paid attention to the concerns of the council's environmental health officer regarding the noise-reduction measures, and heeded the advice to wait until after the TRASHorfield judicial review of the plans was finished.

Had they done so, he said, they would have got the delivery hours they wanted before the agreement's cut-off date in November last year.

Mr Matthias added: "We say, in this case, to withdraw and re-submit when the political climate had cooled post the completion of the judicial review is what should have happened - taking into account all of the perceived problems with the acoustic report that had been identified by the environmental health officer."

Earlier in the penultimate day of the hearing, the court heard evidence from Jim Tarzey, of Pegasus Group, who were consulted by Bristol Rovers when the club made its successful application to vary the delivery times.

Mr Tarzey, who said he has 27 years experience of advising clients on planning issues, said he had looked in detail at Sainsbury's application and felt it was not completely clear.

He said the firm had included 'extensive noise mitigation measures', but added: "However, it was notable that their application lacked clarity as to what noise mitigation measures Sainsbury's had already committed to and what they would offer in terms of further mitigation in support of the change being sought."

The judge also heard from Mark Curtis, Bristol City Council's chief environmental health officer, that the extra measures needed to get council approval were acoustic fences, to protect nearby residents from the noise generated by lorries.

Mr Matthias and Sainsbury's lawyers will continue with their legal submissions tomorrow.

http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news...e-high-court-2466521.aspx#V53eQvO6mu2bpk4H.99

 

Everyone knows that was city fans undercover!

 

CJS I don't think your the only one who's confused, but as long as the judge is clear in her thinking then at least we should get a decision based on the facts and not the hot air that's being spouted by Sainsbury's legal team

 

I think its perfectly clear that Rovers want the deal to go ahead and that Sainsbury are doing their best to find any reason which allows them to wriggle out of it.

 

.............and so we wait.

.............Don't panic lads, it's only the biggest decision in our history!

 

What I have found out about todays time in court....

Sainsburys said they were only required to act in good faith and do their best up until the planning application for extended hours was refused. They didnt want to appeal as this was enough for them to end the contract.

Rovers said Sainsburys had put that application in knowing it would fail which shows it was not good faith or best endeavours.

Sainsburys said they were obligated to put an application in and they fulfilled it. They claimed they couldn't have known it would be refused. Once it was refused, thats it, they could reasonably terminate the agreement.

Rovers gave many examples showing Sainsburys had realised the contract wasnt good for them anymore and they had to find a way out. They painted a compelling picture of Sainsburys showing they were playing the contract and running down the clock to cut off time/date, doing nothing to change the situation and if they really were still wanting to go ahead they would have moved heaven and earth.

Sainsburys told the Judge to apply the letter of the law: No planning permission = Sainsbury's had right to terminate. So to forget good faith and best endeavours etc.


In summary of today...

Sainsburys say they were legally entitled to terminate and walk away.
Rovers say the way Sainsburys conducted themselves to have been in such bad faith that they constructed the very conditions that allowed them to legally walk away.


So it basically all comes down to 'Good Faith'. Will the Judge say Sainsburys was allowed to legally walk away and end the contract once planning permissions was refused to extend the hours OR will the Judge say that how Sainsburys application was refused was because Sainsbury put in a half hearted attempt to extend the hours knowing it will fail on purpose so they can pull out all because they would be making just an £800k PROFIT compared to the £1m PROFIT that was 1st projected to make. Thats why Sainsurys want to pull out as it wont make as much profit as expected due to peoples shopping habits changing.

Will the Judge go with Sainsburys letter of the law or go with 'bad faith' that Sainsburys sabotaged the application to force it to fail and ran down the clock in the process?

 

Thanks for that CJS.

One thing i'm a little confused with. How was this ever described as "Watertight"?

 

Following on from above, 1 witness of Rovers was that was used was some planning person who said the devil was in the detail. Sainsburys application for extended hours missed details out and wad crucial details too. Rovers application to appeal the councils decision had all the details needed and thats why it was accepted.

So the Judge will hopefully take on board what the witness said and also hopefully think how could a massive company like Sainsburys, who will be use to all sorts of applications which includes extended hours etc and will have very experienced people involved paid to get it right, NOT get the application right but get it rejected missing details yet a football club with no planning application history with no experience at all with this sort of thing, could get the application perfect 1st time of asking and get the extended hours that Sainsburys want!

To me that is fishy. Hopefully the Judge see it that way.