Eastenders - Current Episode Discussion - VIII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizann

shirley and mick both names were over the door as licencee so i thought equal share 50 50

---

The joint licence just means local.authority
has granted them a licence to sell alcohol.
How the business is split between them is
up to them ( and the contract). In case of
husband and wife or in their case domestic
partners - it would be usual to own half
each but not mandatory- one may have
invested more than the other or be going
to work for more time than the other.

BUT Shirley has bought a share ( so far no one
seems sure what % she owns-Ive no idea)
Her % would come off 100% and remainder
divided equally or otherwise between M & L.
as per contract.

Dupl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizann

shirley and mick both names were over the door as licencee so i thought equal share 50 50

---

I'm pretty sure Shirley only owns a small percentage (I was thinking perhaps 10%) as she only paid £10,000 for her share (she blackmailed them with the money she got from Stan for the damp if I remember correctly).

Is it possible there is no contract and the agreement is just verbal? I suppose that's not credible because Mick and Linda could just tell Shirley to go to hell if that were the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dazzle

I'm pretty sure Shirley only owns a small percentage (I was thinking perhaps 10%) as she only paid £10,000 for her share (she blackmailed them with the money she got from Stan for the damp if I remember correctly).

Is it possible there is no contract and the agreement is just verbal? I suppose that's not credible because Mick and Linda could just tell Shirley to go to hell if that were the case.

---

We are not too sure whats happened in this case-
but it is possible to have a verbal.partnership
agreement and it is legally binding. It also
may be reasonably easy to dissolve a verbal
partnership where all parties agree.

But would probably need recourse to legal
measures if they didnt!! and Shirley may not
agree to the terms offered!
Were there any witnesses apart from the
viewers?

Some things must be in writing sale of property
tenancy agreements & consumer credit agreements.
are examples.I think there has been a general
assumption there had been a written contract.

P.s. You.have obviously paid more attention
to the the details about Shirleys involvement
than me!!! -but I do miss a couple of episodes
now and again when at relatives.

Dupl

I'd doubt EE would go into too much complexity with this. Im just assuming Mick, Linda and Shirley all have equal shares and Mick and Linda, together, get the say how the business is ran. I didn't watch the episodes where Shirley was given a share but she isnt the type to demand a very low stake in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xx_Dan_xx

I'd doubt EE would go into too much complexity with this. Im just assuming Mick, Linda and Shirley all have equal shares and Mick and Linda, together, get the say how the business is ran. I didn't watch the episodes where Shirley was given a share but she isnt the type to demand a very low stake in it.

---

Spoilers/storylines around 27/01/14 show
Mick.and Linda visit Stan to ask him for
the £10,000 he won on Premium bonds
to help with damp problem at Vic. But he
only did so after insisting Shirley ( who was
waiting outside)asked him herself .Then says
trio went off jubilant.


I missed episode also - but£10000k doesn't
seem.much for a third share of pub-
would have thought share would be much
less?

Will no doubt find out more idc.

Dupl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maidmarian

I missed episode also - but£10000k doesn't
seem.much for a third share of pub-
would have thought share would be much
less?

---

The Wiki from 30th January 2014 says:

Quote:

---

Shirley reinstates her demands – either she’s given a share in the Vic or she’ll leave with the £10,000.

---

and

Quote:

---

Mick tries again to convince Linda to make Shirley a licensee. Linda insists it shouldn’t even be a choice between his family and Shirley. Mick suggests moving on from Walford, promising to always choose Linda and his children. Summoned by a text from Mick, Shirley returns to the Vic. She’s delighted when Linda announces her name’s going above the door, although Linda insists she did it for Mick, not Shirley.

---

It's very low on detail but, given Linda's understandable resistance to Shirley having a share of the Vic, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have agreed to a large share (especially not for £10,000).

I'm not a fan of Sonia and Tina as a couple and I don't think Carol wanted to know much about Tina and Sonia's romance by her facial expression

This feud between Mick and Shirley for the pub is stupid