My mother assures me that I am legitimate, although she was most upset that anyone would think I wasn't! That you can be entertained by - it is a joke. I am truly surprised by your comments - I do not beleive I am hiding behind anything and am unsure of what you want to know - my e-mail address is included in earlier postings - too lazy to do it every time - if there is something you wish to know perhaps that would be a better form to put it in - don't feel obligated to identify yourself - that is entirely up to you - I'm sure everyone has a rather anonymous e-mail.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

No requirement to identify yourself, just common courtesy not to hide behind a mask if you are legitimate. I guess the difference is, you would get a response from me and likely others by identifying yourself. As for answers, my answers would be the same to you or anyone else whether I know them or not.




Cheers,




d2

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

If I was looking for entertainment I can assure you it would not be on an Expropriation Law site. There also does not appear to be any requirement to indentify oneself - I am feeling a little singled out that you feel I should. I also wonder why you would only answer questions from someone you could identify - perhaps there are different answers for different people - those are not the answers I was looking for. I found that both Mr. Melville and Mr. Macleod were very open and clear with their answers and thank them very much for that. When it comes to employing people I think it very important to know how they respond to people - not just those they know!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Well, you may find that other people would be willing to respond to your questions. I know that I don't because anonymous posts are not legitimate in my view. Some entertainment perhaps, but not worth responding to.




Cheers.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why would that be necessary?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why don't you identify yourself first?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Maybe I should sit in on one of these and see how it is actually supposed to go! Perhaps someone could give a description of what this process is should be from how a property owner finds out their property is affected to moving day.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Negotiated agreements are generally worked out and the owner signs an agreement and the agent takes it to his superior to sign. Not the complicated way that you are alluding to, however things can get hairy.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I am a little lost - the Exproriation Authority fills it in as to what their offer is - without their signatures - it is presented to the property owner who can change it if they wish and sign it - then E.A. can again change it, etc. etc. until E.A. signs it? What would be the diffence it it was presented in the opposite manner - E.A. signs Agreement to Purchase - can't it still be changed and doesn't it need the signature and intials of all parties as to changes to be considered legally binding? I must be missing something because I don't get the difference. Hope you can enlighten me.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The effect of this is that the contract agents cannot bind the agency with agreements that are not what the agency wants to pay and/or covenant to.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

What is the effect of this over Offer to Purchase?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You will note that contractors will use offer forms that are the "reverse" in that the offer to sell the property required is from the Owner to the agency.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Your first issue is covered by the law of principal and agent. If a property agent is working within the scope of his/her responsibilities then the principal (the B.C. Government in your example) is bound by the actions of the agent. It doesn't matter whether the property agent is employed directly by government on a salary or as an independent contractor. Therefore, I think it is unlikely that the government would contract out property acquisition services to avoid liability or conflict.




Property agents who are independent contractors need to be sure that they do not make promises that the expropriating authority cannot live with but this is no different than if they are employees.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It appears that the B.C. Government no longer has in-house Property Acquisition Agents and will now rely on contracting these services out. They have been doing this for several years on different projects - I am not sure if this indeed a cost saving measure or the governments attempt to take a step away from any conflict that may develop.


My question concerning this is - what are the legal ramifications to these firms? For example, if the ECB determines that an agent either by ommission or statement led property owners to believe that they would be receiving compensation for a particular thing when in fact they did not, would the agent and his company be liable or are they covered under their contract and not subject to any other court than the ECB?


Also, what are the differences between a Property Acquisition Manager and a Property Acquisition Co-ordinator?


Which of these determines who gets the contracts to perform property acquisitions and which determines the outcome of negotiations?