Tball, from the sounds of things,
- the original mining lease probably had a low rent to encourage a mine to grow towns and infrastructure. Later T bought it, probably for a low price because the rent was not high;
- on renewal PCMR's rent would not go to commercial rent but would remain a peppercorn rent thru til 2050 of around ~$144,000 compared to another resort that pays Talisker $3m in rent a year. (Gotta wondr why PCMR's pass prices aren't lower). Also gotta wonder if PCMR thought "gee we better be really careful and double check every possible ground and tactic that a landlord might use to jack the rent up"
- Talisker allegedly not only sat and watched PCMR instal things, but it had a game plan long before the lease expired with dozens of VR companies to acquire the assets. The deal wasn't "Hey, if my tenant doesn't renew, will you be my new tenant". The deal was "you run the litigation, and I'll sell you Fixtures and you pay me a bigger rent if you win the case". (I think there's a lot of non-property laws about that sort of thing).
- that letter sounds like 'we're the nice guys and PCMR aren't paying proper rent", but I bet the landlord paid for the land based on forecasts that the rent would be a pathetic 144k a year til 2050.
- PCMR must have been nutz to only smell something in Feb 2011 and then not a) double and triple check every possible breach that might be used to deny them a renewal, and b) not send the notice early and c) take proactive measures.
- the alleged backdating could really hurt PCMR's credibility.
- The estoppel/waiver arguments are 'interesting'. It's like taking a knife to a gun fight. PCMR should look at a lot of different areas.