@Spectre660

Quote:

Spectre660 wrote: @Tigger The Judge is refering to various documents with differences from both sides. The subcontractors Annex versus no Annex on the original Agreement and the two "Arctic" ones. What he is saying is that it is unsafe to rule using these as evidence as both sides have diffrent versions. He is treating clause 2.04 of AMiga Incs version of the Artic Agreement as having effect after clause 3.01 of the Original Agreement. Which he is forced to because "there" Arctic version makes no sense.

Again you dont seem to be reading what he said. He said

"Further Amiga has submitted with the declaration of William McEwen a copy of a later (2004) agreement regarding the delivery of rights to OS 4 upon payment of $25,000 by Amiga. Declaration of McEwen, exhibit G. This agreement is unsigned and differs in significant respect from the one presented by Hyperion, dated May 26, 2004. Carlton Declaration Exhibit 12."

There is no mention of delivery of rights or $25,000 in either the Amiga version or the Hyperion version he is pointing too. The only place the $25K is mentioned is the original contract, and the Hyperion-Itec sales agreements. In both cases those documents are identical with the exception of Annex II appearing on the Hyperion version of the original contract. Since 25K is not mentioned in either version of the document he is discussing, my only analysis is that he is confused when he referenced those documents.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.