2nd February 2006, 06:25 PM
Hey Sparky, now I'm confused! Are you talking about the developer, or the contractor?
If the latter, this has been much discussed here, but I guess in theory a proposal to use a demonstrably unsuitable, unqualified, inexperienced, incompetent or otherwise inappropriate contractor could be not accepted as likely to satisfy the terms of a condition, but you would have to be pretty sure you'd be able to demonstrate it if and when challenged.
I wonder where the queen keeps all her Canadian artefacts then? Big shed in the garden at Windsor perhaps? Or maybe she flogs them off on e-bay under a pseudonym...
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
If the latter, this has been much discussed here, but I guess in theory a proposal to use a demonstrably unsuitable, unqualified, inexperienced, incompetent or otherwise inappropriate contractor could be not accepted as likely to satisfy the terms of a condition, but you would have to be pretty sure you'd be able to demonstrate it if and when challenged.
I wonder where the queen keeps all her Canadian artefacts then? Big shed in the garden at Windsor perhaps? Or maybe she flogs them off on e-bay under a pseudonym...
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.