a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce".So can this be considered a contract?
Certainly promises were made and it appears that the promise is being broken since resources are not being removed from equalization, but the question is, is it a contract?
I expect Harper's case will be that a political promise is a special case. A political promise is only as good as circumstances allow and if circumstances change, a political promise can change too and is therefore not a binding contract. I think Harper is rolling the dice once again, hoping a judge will accept the difference between a political promise and a legal contract. He might win with that argument in court, but I think he comes out looking like a weasel. It is also unlikely such an argument will save the Conservative Party, east of Quebec.
Update: Robopundit comes out swinging.