[News] 4 New Filings in the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc Case | ANN.lu |
Posted on 21-Dec-2003 02:32 GMT by samface | 250 comments View flat View list |
There are 4 new filings in the civil docket for the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc case, including:
RESPONSE by Defendant Amiga Inc. (Entered: 12/19/2003)
AMENDED REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs (Entered: 12/16/2003)
DECLARATION of Bill Buck filed by Plaintiff Thendic Electronics Components (Entered: 12/16/2003)
ORDER by Judge Robert S Lasnik granting in part 31 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Entered: 12/19/2003)
A highlight from the latest ruling by Judge Lasnik:
Defendant's counterclaim is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute. However, the Court declines to rule on plaintiffs' request for specific performance at this time. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is renoted for 1/16/2004. Plaintiffs shall have until Monday, January 12, 2004 to submit a memorandum in response to the issues and concerns raised in this Order. Defendant, if and only if it retains counsel in the interim, may file a reply memorandum no later than 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 2004. No extensions shall be given.
Visit the Civil Docket for the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc case here.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
4 New Filings in the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc Case : Comment 153 of 250 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Anonymous on 22-Dec-2003 13:52 GMT | In reply to Comment 142 (samface): > There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the contract that states that Amiga Inc. would be
> obliged to give their consent.
And ABSOLUTELY NOBODY has claimed otherwise. That is, as long as ainc aren't *unreasonably* withholding consent.
> It only states that Amiga Inc. should not withold their consent *without
> reason*. If Amiga Inc. has given their reasons for not giving their consent,
> what is there to argue?
You no speaka Engrish? Have you not read the contract? I know you're not a native English speaker, but if you don't understand what you read, please refrain from commenting or ask someone with a clue.
The contract disallows ainc from *unreasonably* withholding consent. This is NOT the same as "as long as ainc can come up with an excuse". The REASONS have to be REASONABLE. My Norwegian lawyer friend says the Swedish expression would be "rimliga skael", maybe that will help you understand.
Yes, one could argue that the contract is vaguely formulated by not explicitly stating what's reasonable and unreasonable reasons. But it's still signed.
Now it's for the court to decide what's "rimliga" (reasonable).
> Am I really THAT irrational in my reasoning?
Yes. At least if you DO understand the word "(un)reasonable" but still insist on that twisted reasoning of yours. Judging from the posts I've seen from you on other topics, I'm inclined to go for the "irrational by fanaticism" verdict, rather than "has misunderstood what he read". |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|