@Tigger

The agreement regarding the buy-back/buy-in was exhibit F, not G. Additionally it was signed, not unsigned.

Since the exhibits F and G were presented in a single continuous pdf it is obvious that the judge was flicking through the exhibits, and "missed" that the unsigned signature page actually referred to exhibit G, not exhibit F.

This was a mistake regarding this particular point, this does not mean the judge was "confused" (implying that his reasoning was impaired about the whole case). The remaining points in the decision remain valid.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.