Unanswered question

Dear Editor:

Many questions were asked at the public meeting to discuss the Skaha Lake Park agreements on Wednesday night and many were answered, but I think none was glossed over so much as the question about the status of the original agreement with Trio Marine Group.

Many people believe that Trio’s failure to meet financial obligations by deadline made the original agreement void. If this were the case, we could all call it a day and be happy the turmoil is over.

What’s curious is that the city has not behaved as though Trio breached the contract. Why not?

The city answers that Trio might dispute that conclusion, and it doesn’t want to incur any further legal costs.

This begs belief.

First, Trio might not dispute the conclusion. It could all be over if the city simply sued for non-performance.

Second, if Trio disputed the charge, the case went to court, and Trio were found guilty, the city would win its legal costs.

Third, what makes the proposed settlement agreement and ongoing relationship with Trio look like a better bet than a legal case for non-performance? If somehow the city were to lose a case like that, could we be in much worse shape than we are today?

The overwhelming opinion at the meeting was that the city should cut Trio loose no matter what it might cost in settlement monies, no matter if the settlement were to hit $200,000.

The public simply wants to see the end of this company, which it does not trust.

The obvious question, and the question that was skirted three times at the meeting, is why would we settle at all if the original agreement were void?

It’s a fundamental question that needs to be answered through law.

Dianne Varga