For sale laser Bucket Grader Scraper Pull Pan or Laser Bucket grading scrapers have now a new feature fitted, this does provide loading / unloading and grading decreased HP used over and above the below. This ablity is only avaliable with Dugong Grader Scrapers. A further 40 to 80 % fuel saving. How the Dugong Grader scraper Laser Bucket Pull Pan is against the competition?
Rear wheel Grader Scraper assist, only on some models. A special Grader Scraper feature to help load and unload pull pan with half the hp, a massive fuel saver for any laser bucket. This will not help the competitors, as their design may make it inaffective or damage the machine. The required HP for each Laser Bucket will not change the operation will result in a large fuel saving. Grader Scraper operation with new electric powered tractors will seem less of an issue to contractors and the like.
All Scraper Grader Pull Pan Laser Buckets from Franks Final Grade can be ordered through the email at the top of the page if you don't see what you are looking for in this list.
Be sure the list still has the item for sale as it is advised it can change any time without notice to you the reader.
To bankers the NSW State land holder/stake holders, Murray Darling Basin stake holders, the broader National plus state farmers federation and farmers in general. The matter below is in contradiction with the words in context stake holders. A very disturbing abuse of privilege as a stake holder, is brought to the attention of you, as news. This despicable act will go on as a crime and you should report such behaviour, call out people whom do such things along with solicitors representing in local areas like city slickers. If you wish to toggle the the facts the front page picture water way it is said to be, 6-7 megalitre maximum full level, a survey of the area before the fence underlines this, this is taken to be its size, the clients word suffices, the water way is 1200 metres long, so the water can be pumped up at the highest point, it has been built against the grade of the field next to it, refused access by the court to have a survey done. What can one do but laugh at the despicable lawyers, operators of the community to access a group claiming to be family.
News 17/05/2021 RE: Court Judgement
A long standing issue and countless attemps at resolution.
The base of the defendants case. A contract drafted locally by solicitors and undestroyed evidance.
The defendant was unaware the agreement entered into, did not include what they wanted (shares in an irrigation company Murrumbidgee irrigation), is rejected by the plaintiff. A mystery expectation is made good.
The defendant: Unaware of water act 2000 and or meaning, since repealed or other wise. Privitising meaning to water rights in 2000, used by them (members contract) issued by Murrumbidgee Irrigation despite having a collection of licenses with them. Water channel on property (pictured on home page) its size and context to the property. Refuses to accept wrong indication dispite evidence. Dispite a property sharing agreement. Unaware ownership of property, in violation of an agreement relied on. Disputes court judgement for NSW GIPA application to local council for members contract from Murrumbidgee Irrigation. The mother of the defendant claims her husband has alzheimer's disease to the court, he is excused from giving evidance. Many months later the husband instructs a lawyer to sell to another family member a valuable property.
The plaintiff rejects the defendants assertions under oath. The defendant instructed his lawyer to dissolve a sale of land contract, without the lawyer understanding the defendant thought it contained shares in an irrigation company. The plaintiff rejects the defendants case as it was fabricated from nothing. Ignorance in this instant is an unacceptable answer as they were aware every other time they purchased. A thanks to Noyce Salmon D"Aquino of Griffith the defendants solicitor for allowing me to rest in peace with the expert help they provided. No facts were provided with supporting evidence. Franks Final Grade believes the defendant mocked and taunted the court with vague references, seeking to clarify later. The defendant could have dispelled the issues with evidence from the original source and did not. The defendant is litigating to hide the truth created by his lawyer. Below are facts in the matter.