Originally Posted by
schley
Preston feeling alittle frisky today I see and so close to Mother's Day.
If you are familiar with bilateral purchase contracts, then standard options exist such as those I mentioned, which wouldn't be unique to UA's with Airbus. A contract, between UA and Airbus in this case, is a legally binding agreement that if one party doesn't fulfill their obligations they would be in breach and would carry penalties.
Are you saying this contract isn't legally binding? That is something the shareholders and the SEC would love to hear about if so. If it wasn't it wouldn't be a contract to publicize and report on one's financial statements and against US GAAP. There should be nothing ambiguous or murky with contracts but crystal clear and black/white or it wouldn't pass the 5 characteristics of a legally binding contact.
Contact me offline and we can continue with substance, as opposed to the soft pitch softballs you are throwing my way.
Don't forget to contact all the women in your life who are mom's tomorrow.^
OK, show me all of the performance guarantees in the contract (since you can't you are speaking out of nowhere anyways) and the cross-default sub's and 3 legal opinions telling me that there is a 0% chance there are no defaults or cross defaults and then we can have a discussion whether they are binding. We both know the reason UA can kick the can down the road is because Airbus missed its original delivery dates so the whole contract is possibly in technical default anyways...so there's that...
and what does my mother have to do with this? is this a violation of FT terms? very OT