Non-Tender Sale of 500 Million NAMA Assets Planned ?

[Baron von Biffo]

I meant that it is included in the contract and therefore becomes a legal requirement. Of course there is no obligation on any party to include it but once included, it does become a very real legal requirement in Irish contract law.

We're getting there.

UO clauses are not legally required but if they're in the lease they will be legally protected.

They are exactly the same as a clause prohibiting the erection of neon signs or obliging the landlord to maintain the carpark. If both landlord and tenant agree, they can be modified or set aside entirely.

[Slim Buddha]

We're getting there.

UO clauses are not legally required but if they're in the lease they will be legally protected.

They are exactly the same as a clause prohibiting the erection of neon signs or obliging the landlord to maintain the carpark. If both landlord and tenant agree, they can be modified or set aside entirely.

Indeed we are. Even in Ireland, material clauses in contracts are legally enforceable. Since it is "standard practice" , it would appear, to have these clauses present in contracts, we have, as they say, a serious problem when the economy crashes and burns. As it has in Ireland.

[Baron von Biffo]

Indeed we are. Even in Ireland, material clauses in contracts are legally enforceable. Since it is "standard practice" , it would appear, to have these clauses present in contracts, we have, as they say, a serious problem when the economy crashes and burns. As it has in Ireland.

During the boom our razor sharp entrepreneurs didn't lower themselves to the vulgarity of reading small print in their leases. Their innate genius would always ensure the tills bulged so trifles like that were unimportant.

Now that reality is biting they're screaming about the unfairness of having to honour the deals they signed up for. They want the government to step in and rescue them from their own stupidity.

Fortunately the constitution is saving us from the natural instinct of government to do the populist thing.

[Slim Buddha]

During the boom our razor sharp entrepreneurs didn't lower themselves to the vulgarity of reading small print in their leases. Their innate genius would always ensure the tills bulged so trifles like that were unimportant.

Now that reality is biting they're screaming about the unfairness of having to honour the deals they signed up for. They want the government to step in and rescue them from their own stupidity.

Fortunately the constitution is saving us from the natural instinct of government to do the populist thing.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the Constitution has guaranteed the extended life of a "Frankenstein-like jobs-killer". It is all a matter of perspective.

[Baron von Biffo]

On the other hand, it can be argued that the Constitution has guaranteed the extended life of a "Frankenstein-like jobs-killer". It is all a matter of perspective.

We could argue that the constitution enshrines discrimination against leprechauns if we want but that doesn't mean our argument has any merit.

Landlord and tenant each has a property interest in a lease and the constitution affords them equal protection.

Foolish business people who signed UO leases are showing that they learned nothing from their mistakes when they demand action from the government to set aside such clauses. If the landlord could no longer rely on the lease then neither could the tenant. They could be evicted at the drop of a hat.

A more sound argument is that businesses that collapse because of UO clauses were run by incompetents in the first place so culling them will make way for more skilled successors.

[Slim Buddha]

We could argue that the constitution enshrines discrimination against leprechauns if we want but that doesn't mean our argument has any merit.

Landlord and tenant each has a property interest in a lease and the constitution affords them equal protection.

Foolish business people who signed UO leases are showing that they learned nothing from their mistakes when they demand action from the government to set aside such clauses. If the landlord could no longer rely on the lease then neither could the tenant. They could be evicted at the drop of a hat.

A more sound argument is that businesses that collapse because of UO clauses were run by incompetents in the first place so culling them will make way for more skilled successors.

And that is an equally valid way of looking at it. The problem is that the successors, skilled or otherwise, do not seemed to have arrived yet (possibly put off by the idiocy of UORR) and many commercial properties are empty. So the landlord gets no rent, the (skilled!) businessman remains out of the loop because of UORR and the people who were laid off when the idiot businessman's business went up in smoke remain on the dole. I am trying to figure out who wins in this (because in Ireland there is always a cute hoor coining it) but I am at a loss here. It is not even in Noonan's interest to indulge this nonsense, so if you could point me in the direction of afore-mentioned cute hoor, I would apreciate it.

[Slim Buddha]

One of the fundamental problems with Ireland is that Paddy sees property speculation as a legitimate business to be aspired to and emulated.



Call me an auld cynic, but I assume this means NAMA is fulfilling one of its primary purposes, that of laundering the assets to remove the attached debt, then facilitating their transfer back to the same clique of parasites who originally owned them.

Oh sure, this is Ireland, so different members of the parasite class, through an impenetrable web of Manx shell companies, will hold the assets....for a while....then in a few years when NAMA has been safely wound up and all documentation mysteriously "lost" they'll all get together over a few fancy meals and figure out how to give everybody back what they started with. Minus the debt. Which Paddy will be paying for the next 40 years.

Lovely little country.

Another reason to make membership of Fianna Fail a criminal offence attracting a mandatory custodial sentence of no less than 10 years.

[DCon]

Another reason to make membership of Fianna Fail a criminal offence attracting a mandatory custodial sentence of no less than 10 years.

If FG or FG/LAB were in power during the boom, nothing would be different.

A few FG donors would have replaced a few FF donors, but nothing other than that.

[Slim Buddha]

If FG or FG/LAB were in power during the boom, nothing would be different.

A few FG donors would have replaced a few FF donors, but nothing other than that.

Indeed , that may be true. We will never know. What we do know is that Fianna Fail is a semi-criminal organisation masquerading as a political party who, when they were in office, abused the institutions of state for corrupt purposes and who are, amongst others, directly responsible for the situation Ireland and the majority of its citizens are now in and for that, they should be proscribed and the membership of this organisation made a criminal offence.

If FG and Labour behave in the same manner, then extend the measure to include them.

[Baron von Biffo]

If FG or FG/LAB were in power during the boom, nothing would be different.

A few FG donors would have replaced a few FF donors, but nothing other than that.

That's it in a nutshell. And for so long as we continue our obsession with personalities rather than the whole structure of our system nothing ever will be different.

[Baron von Biffo]

And that is an equally valid way of looking at it. The problem is that the successors, skilled or otherwise, do not seemed to have arrived yet (possibly put off by the idiocy of UORR) and many commercial properties are empty. So the landlord gets no rent, the (skilled!) businessman remains out of the loop because of UORR and the people who were laid off when the idiot businessman's business went up in smoke remain on the dole. I am trying to figure out who wins in this (because in Ireland there is always a cute hoor coining it) but I am at a loss here. It is not even in Noonan's interest to indulge this nonsense, so if you could point me in the direction of afore-mentioned cute hoor, I would apreciate it.

The cute hoorism came via the demands for the state to retrospectively outlaw UO clauses. The plan there would have been for the tenant to get a rent cut while the landlord got a rent increase and the whole lot to be funded in the end by the taxpayer.

If businesses sign contracts that they can't honour, they'll go under. If landlords want more in rent than tenants can afford, they'll go under too. The state really shouldn't be in the business of protecting poor business people from their own stupidity.

[Slim Buddha]

The cute hoorism came via the demands for the state to retrospectively outlaw UO clauses. The plan there would have been for the tenant to get a rent cut while the landlord got a rent increase and the whole lot to be funded in the end by the taxpayer.

If businesses sign contracts that they can't honour, they'll go under. If landlords want more in rent than tenants can afford, they'll go under too. The state really shouldn't be in the business of protecting poor business people from their own stupidity.

I agree wholeheartedly. But I expect that UORR will continue to be a running sore as the economy continues to deteriorate and head inexorably south.