Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote Hey, this is the private sector - they don't do risk or investment - that's for the public sector. I read somwhere that they (Metronet) could do absolutely nothing, no maintenance etc and would STILL get paid. I see that LUL are suing Bombardier for GBP20 million over the Chancery Lane derailment. Bombardier aren't best pleased, as the Central Line stock was built by ABB, which was sold to Adtranz, and Adtranz was sold to Bombardier, who don't see why they should take on their predecessors' liabilities. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...266333,00.html Peter |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Masson" writes:
I see that LUL are suing Bombardier for GBP20 million over the Chancery Lane derailment. Bombardier aren't best pleased, as the Central Line stock was built by ABB, which was sold to Adtranz, and Adtranz was sold to Bombardier, who don't see why they should take on their predecessors' liabilities. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...266333,00.html Maybe if it does succeed then it might set a precedent against the retail companies who buy out another and then (often while still trading under the original name) refuse to honour the warranties/ extended guarantees issued by the original company. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:35:30 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote: "Peter Masson" writes: I see that LUL are suing Bombardier for GBP20 million over the Chancery Lane derailment. Bombardier aren't best pleased, as the Central Line stock was built by ABB, which was sold to Adtranz, and Adtranz was sold to Bombardier, who don't see why they should take on their predecessors' liabilities. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...266333,00.html Maybe if it does succeed then it might set a precedent against the retail companies who buy out another and then (often while still trading under the original name) refuse to honour the warranties/ extended guarantees issued by the original company. I suspect there's a subtle difference involving the company being sold in one case and company assets (but not the company itself) being sold in the other. The usual trick with "phoenix" companies seems to involve the bankrupt/dodgy/dissolved company's assets being sold by the receiver to a new company owned by the same people as the original company. -- _______ +---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //| | Charles Ellson: | | \\ // | +---------------------------------------------------+ | | | // \\ | Alba gu brath |//___\\| |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Maximum transaction values at LU touchscreen machines? | London Transport | |||
Victorian Tiling at Embankment | London Transport | |||
Trivia: Victorian double-decker trains? | London Transport | |||
Tube Map + Property Values | London Transport |