Council tree felling...

[Guest makapaka]

Well, except for the obvious evidence of the original contract and the fact that the work isn't finished.

So given the evidence we actually have, they're in breach, you provide some evidence to show that they aren't...

You keep repeating the same question, rather than answer again I'll just put it in bold above.

 

That’s not evidence of anything is it.

 

Try going into a court and saying “well your honour - we terminatedthem because they were in material breach of contract for delay”

 

“And what evidence do you have ?”

 

“Well they were supposed to be finished by now”

 

“And what evidence do you have to show that this is a consequence of their material breach”

 

“Don’t need any - they should be finished by now”

 

CASE CLOSED.........!!

[ricgem2002 11]

id like to know how many people who come on the forum work for amey and would shed a different light on the subject

[Cyclone 10]

That’s not evidence of anything is it.

 

Try going into a court and saying “well your honour - we terminatedthem because they were in material breach of contract for delay”

 

“And what evidence do you have ?”

 

“Well they were supposed to be finished by now”

 

“And what evidence do you have to show that this is a consequence of their material breach”

 

“Don’t need any - they should be finished by now”

 

CASE CLOSED.........!!

 

Errr, it's not a consequence, it IS the material breach.

Contract says "xyz works to be completed by date 123", date 123 passes and xyz not complete. That's material breach. The evidence required in a court in that case would be the contract and the fact that the works were not complete.

[Phili Buster 10]

Oh, well, that's it then, lets cut them all down. You've cracked it. We're better off without trees!

 

I don't want to cut all the trees down and never said that, it is you that has now suggested this radical solution. You brought up the notion of trees being a help with asthma, I was just pointing out that tree pollen could exasperate the problem. If you feel that cutting down all the trees is the cure I must disagree, keep taking your antihistamines.

[Baron99 811]

id like to know how many people who come on the forum work for amey and would shed a different light on the subject

 

Doubt if you'll get that, even with the aliases of posting names.

 

One of the pubs I go in there are a couple of blokes who used to work for SCC & then transfered over to Amey but on their old SCC contracts, which Amey hate.

 

While they will mention what's going on over a pint, you'll not hear anything from any Amey staff officially. The workers have had many meetings over the years where they have basically been threatened with dismissal should they speak out.

 

Only a fool wouldn't believe that comments posted on here aren't being monitored occasionally by Amey's staff to see if anyone is giving out info that indicates they work for Amey.

 

They do however mention on many occasions what a poor company thay are to work for. Very draconian in regards to work place discipline & anyone stepping out of line for the slightest infringement of rules are out the door.

[Eater Sundae 12]

As I understand it, they're not necessarily replanting saplings in the same places as the fellings. So while they may well be replanting trees they might be in areas of existing woodland or parks.

 

For example, some replacements near me were on a grassed area beyond the pavement, instead of on the pavement where the originals had been.

 

Another one near me was on a sideroad, set back from the junction, instead of the old position which interfered with the view of vehicles exiting the junction.

 

I'm not sure, but I think some of the replacements on Rustlings Road were placed just over the fence in Endcliffe park.

 

All pretty sensible decisions, in my opinion.

[Longcol 610]

id like to know how many people who come on the forum work for amey and would shed a different light on the subject

 

I think you'll find most people posting on this thread have been on SF for years before anyone in Sheffield had heard of Amey.

[Guest makapaka]

Errr, it's not a consequence, it IS the material breach.

Contract says "xyz works to be completed by date 123", date 123 passes and xyz not complete. That's material breach. The evidence required in a court in that case would be the contract and the fact that the works were not complete.

 

Unfortunately it’s not that simple.

[Cyclone 10]

Well, do explain, what evidence do you imagine would be needed beyond the agreed contract and the failure to have achieved the agreed results in the agreed time in said contract?

[Guest makapaka]

Well, do explain, what evidence do you imagine would be needed beyond the agreed contract and the failure to have achieved the agreed results in the agreed time in said contract?

 

You would need to understand what had happened over the course of the contract, the entitlements and obligations etc that each party had taken on under the contract, the apportionment of risk, the management of the contract by both parties operationally and commercially - you could go on forever.

 

If you think parties to large construction and engineering contracts can simply say they didn’t finish when they said they would to evidence material breach youre mistaken.

[ricgem2002 11]

If you think parties to large construction and engineering contracts can simply say they didn’t finish when they said they would to evidence material breach youre mistaken.

i wonder what the penalty clauses were when the contracts were signed

[Cyclone 10]

You would need to understand what had happened over the course of the contract, the entitlements and obligations etc that each party had taken on under the contract, the apportionment of risk, the management of the contract by both parties operationally and commercially - you could go on forever.

 

If you think parties to large construction and engineering contracts can simply say they didn’t finish when they said they would to evidence material breach youre mistaken.

 

All these things are part of the contract, except "what has happened over the course of the contract" which, unless it includes agreed variations to the contract or invokes other clauses in the contract is irrelevant.

 

If you can say they didn't finish when they were contractually obligated to do so, and without some allowed for exception in the contract or an agreed variation, then that's quite specifically the definition of being in breach.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Cyclone