Jerry_Atrick

Unf, in these cases it is not that simple. The general contract law is a thrid party can't be bound to a contract without knowledge and some for of agreement. There will be some form of body corporate, and for larger apartments, these will normally be either a trust or strata company - either way a serparate legal entity - that will have an agreement/contract with the apartment owners. The agreement (contract), is usually in standard form with variations depending on the amenities of the complex, but basically that agreement will be for providing maintenance and services (usually in a schedule) to the apartments in return for a periodical fee and any top ups as required. There will be reaonableness clauses and things like that, but they often allow quite a lot of leeway to the "body corporate". So, energy contract will be between the energy company and the body corporate, and a separate contract will be between the body corporate and apartment owners. Therefore, in general, the apartment owners are not third parties to the contract between the body corporate and energy provider, because the body corporate has discretion who to contract with to provide those services. The apartment owners are being billed under the body corporate/management agreement. So, as long as the body corporate is conforming to that agreement (and there will normally be a provision of reasonable charges, but that is based on any excess over the costs, not on ensuring the supplier costs are reasonable per se. But there are other areas or law the apartment owners can pursue. There should be a good faith requirement in the body corporate agreement. And if there isn't one, the courts will usually imply a good faith agreement. That being the case, if it can be shown the contract was entered into for the benefit of the developer above the apartment holders and disclosure of the contract would materially affect the price paid, there is a good chance the body corporate could be sued for damages. This would probably only apply to the owners who bought off the plan, though, as they are the ones who are directly implacted; subsequent buyers will probably be taken under the caveat emptor (buyer beware) general rule when buying property as it is as a transfer between twoo provate individuals and not a company selling as product to a consumer. Unless there was an effort by a buyer to understand the nature of the services purchased by the body corporate, there is little chance of misrepresentation, as the body corporate would not have disclosed, let alone misrepresented it. The maxim that the law doesn't suffer fools puts the onus on each party of the contract to seek information, not to disclose it. Obviously in property law, there are mandatory disclosures that have to be made (changes state by state). But, if this is not one of them, then misrep will generally not be available. The other may be the exit fees being seen as penalties. Although Australian contract law allows penalties (UK law doesn't - only liquidated damages), they will generally have to be proportional. A contract break with a utility company would not normally be seens as such a fundamental risk of the contract to the utility company that it would justify exhorbitant penalties. So, if the $135K or whatever the break amount was, is, say for one apartments rather than shared amongst all, the court would strike that down and probably, for being such fwits in trying to fleece the apartment holders, reduce the break amouont to zero. What the courts will normally do is reduce it to a reasonable amount based . Similary, if the break amount is the same on the first month and the last month of the contract - i.e. it doesn't have some form of step down, then they will usually do the same. And usually, this will be based on how much the contract would have grossed the utility for the term of the contract minus what has already been paid, plus some for admin charges. So, they probably have some remedy, but unf, it will unlikely be misrepresentation. They will need good lawyers and make sure the electricity company has the funds to cough up the legal bills.

Have you been to the Mach Loop in northern Wales (I think it is)?

https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-archive/sa-records-nations-biggest-fall-in-power-prices Hmm... that is the volatility most people would like, I would suggest.

That is misogynistic.. But it is funny..

Too right.. Neither does Greenland or the Netherlands; the former in the firing line of annexation and the latter Does WWIII break out between the US and its allies and the rest of the world wait to rummage through the remains? Also, the rest of the world is also directly impacted by his "policies" and we also don't get to vote. All round ship show while the Chump is at the helm

Apart from Albo who are you talking about is in the race for the PM-ship. If not Albo, who will take it? I believe the housing crisis had its genesis well before Albo was near the lodge

I think this is an appropriate place to post this. A major power outage has swept across Spain and Portugal, knocking out transport, mobile networks, and other infrastructure. I am thinking there could be nerfarious play.. another reason to go off grid... (ps didn't link it as it is on the guardian's live feed and by the time you clicked on the link, it is probable thee would be something different showing)

Haven't they already done that at the higher courts?

Vid not available in my country 😞 Will have to load up a VPN

The question is not who, but what.. and the answer is the constitution that they swore to uphold. So, as they swore to uphold the constitution, they gave the justices a right to judge them.

I thought I would start a thread of social media content and providers that is not political that are worth promoting. First cab off the rank from me is Road Trucking Adventures. Great vids of a road train trucker and his travels. He is getting popular and now sadly does members only vids, but these are gems: And he is obviously very respectful because he doesn't hold back the great Aussie salute.

If its cheap, it will sell regardless. The world lately has taught me principles are exceedingly cheap.

It would not surprise me. I had a car accident in Dallas way back in the late '90s. The policeman and I were talking and I explained that the show, Cops, had not long been running in Australia, and asked if it were an over-dramatisation of what it was like in the USA. His response, in a southern drawl was, "No sir. It's very accurate... Just today, the state legislature passed a law allowing people to carry concealed handguns in shopping centres." I asked him what he thought about it, and he was clear the police hated it.. and could not understand why anyone would need to carry guns in that situation. He also said most police are all for proper gun control. So, yeah, I would not be surprised if it were legit in Texas. Although I don't think it is.

I would proffer that so did Macron and other world leaders - and it was the same subject. Thanks OT.. I am taking a break from catching up on some study I have to do. However, it is pretty clear that the 5th Amendment prohibits denial of liberty without due process and this has been upheld for a lot less than what Chump is currently getting away with. At the moment, a complicity executive (because the president can arbitrarily appoint the executive - a flaw in their system) and congress means the courts are the only check and balance on the other two organs of government. Even though they can appoint a special counsel to prosecute contempt, who would enforce it? As I have always said to my kids, many of the autocratic countries in the world have constitutions that would be aspirational to most democracies, but the propaganda machines and the keys to the military and other executive agencies - and the general culture of the country - determine whether or not the constitution is effective or just a propaganda piece. This article, if accurate is a cause of deep concern: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-27/how-us-voters-feel-about-donald-trump-100-days/105215796 Chump's supporters are defending thei continued support basically because he is implementing his promises at breakneck speed. There is no discussion on whether those promises are the right thing to do, or whether the execution of those promises are lawful. We have cases where people who are documented or have lawful abode in the USA being rounded up and. upon a court order not being brought back. Why? And we have many situations where there hasn't been due process, as required by the 5th amendment where the courts have ruled against the government being flagrantly ignored. Also, we have someone saying Grandpa Joe worked at a glacial pace. Yeah, I agree with that criticism. But in terms of domestic affairs, he managed to turn an incredibly large ship around in a very tight circle of time without causing extra undue duress to his people. Chump is simply wiggling the rudder backwards and forwards, and the bolts holing it on seem to be wobbling loose. Yet, because he is implementing his promises at breakneck speed, all is OK, apparently. Farmers are losing their farms, unemployment is rising, civil unrest is spreading.. flagrant breaches of the law are continuing, and the real economy - not just the stock markets is starting to tank.. But that is OK, as long as he implements his policies at break neck speed, when a more measured approach will probably reach the outcomes, some of which are fair, with less disruption and faster. But worryingly, this is looking more and more like the 1930s. The dangerous rhetoric being whipped up, the governments attempts and controlling academic political discourse. Not only the weakening, but attacks on the judiciary that are upholding the rule of law even when it doesn't meet the government's agenda. A Wisconsin (I think) judge has been arrested so far without representation for abetting an illegal immigrant - whom, after hearing the case said there was none and told the immigrant where the door was. The arbitrary detainment of visitors - allegedly because they may have some messages on their phones criticising Chump. And who on earth would have thought in our lifetime, western European countries would be issuing travel advisories urging care when visiting the USA due to such flagrant violations of human rights because those visitors could be subject to them? Unless someone straightens up this ship, this has the potential to have much longer term negative ramifications than are evident. Of course, the possibility of an outright autocracy is very high as the American people have, and seem happy to allow the executive to gram more and more power than they are allowed to. And why would they want to do that? However, despite America's current economic strength, the volatility that is being introduced and the lack of respect of the rule of law makes conducting business with the USA precarious. And most business people will have consistency, even if they don't give a poop about human rights.. Because without consistency, they can't plan confidently to make profits year on year. If the US$ keeps falling, the international value of the US economy will fall with it, and that may open doors to places like China or Europe, although admittedly the latter has other structural economic and political issues to deal with.

I would trust them less than Huwaei equipment.

Hmm.. so there are advantages to Musk's plans? 😉

This is even more worrying:

Is there any hope?

This captures the essence of the shift in direction of the USA, but also highlights the dependency of the rest of the world on it.

One can only imagine the hell sufferers of this abuse go through.. As I recall, the Queen ended up paying her £12m to stop a civil case from going to court to protect her son. Although this was hailed as a victory to Giuffre, it probably shows any of these compensatory vcitories, which includes a tacit admssion from the Queen that her alleged favourtie sone was more likely than not to have lost the case, are very hollow to the victims. May she rest in peace.

Great 4 corners report on the lead up to Bathurst and touring car racing

I'd be really surprised if there were that many undecided voters who were really not forming an opinion at this stage, except for apathy or intentionally not casting a ballot for anyone. But, I have been surprised before. If I were polled on who would get my primary, secondary, and tertiary vote, what would I say? I could say which parties (or independents) I intend to, or I could say undecided. That's because, I am fairly sure which way I would vote, but I am still amenable to changing it, based on anything matrertial coming up, which could happen. I would probably lean to say the way I intend at this stage, but that understates my undecidedness. Or I could say I am undecided, and that understates they way I vote. Politics has traditionally been rusted on, crusties, or whatever being the majority of voters. Sure, they will never change their mind so they should just vote whe in convenient to them in the voting window. Then there are those that will swing their votes - some with difficulty, and some with ease.

That tells us all you certainly are not a sausage man 🙂 I obviously can't vote in this election (Son was disappointed not to be there to vote), but I would like to leave it to polling day unless impossible. The reason is because, sort of like the QLD election, it would give me time for some crap to be uncovered, which may sway my vote. Although, there are elections wherer my mind woudl be made up well in advance (this is one of them) and it would take an awful lot of crap to come out before I would change my vote.

This popped up in my YT feed. He admits he is biased to Labor, but if you want a summary of all the policies thus far of ALP, LNP, and GRN, then it seems pretty unbiased, and take your own opinion on them.