Solar Wind Energy Tower Inc. (fka SWET)

[Nomad505]

Actually, I hadn't forgotten the lynch pin in your argument regarding the letter of intent with National Standard. My last post which focused precisely on the issue didn't have the desired effect. It was, however, revealing...

Since I'm taking the time to break out the laptop in order to discuss this issue "one more time" I may as well get full use and spray a few links in order to hopefully seal this argument...

Although, I've sprayed links before without much result... I put several of them in post 5756

You made your point pretty clearly in post 5761. The letter of intent is non-binding, got it...

You restate the argument in post 6092

However, I've already explained that the letter of intent is, by design, non binding.
I did this way back in post 5748.

In post 6107 I focused precisely on the fact that if National Standard were to back out of the deal that they would, potentially, be liable for damages.

Your response in post 6109 was to summarily deny ever implying that National Standard would back out of the letter of intent simply because they could. However, your own words say exactly that in post 5761

Once I figured out that clear logic wasn't going to change your mind I decided that it was I who had been knocking my head against a wall...

Since you continue to present your hypothesis as fact I've decided to try again...

One point you made was that Solar Wind Energy hadn't mentioned the letter of intent in any SEC documents until the recent S1. That is simply not true.

The company filed a letter to shareholders of record on March 18th, 2014. In that letter the company said the following.

Additionally, the Company has obtained a “Letter of Interest” from a major international funding source indicating their support to finance the Arizona project. The Company expects a definitive “Letter of Intent” to follow and we will update upon receipt.

Let me clarify the company's use of the word definitive with reference to its use as an adjective found here serving to define, fix, or specify definitely since I anticipate that you may consider it a weak point and attempt to exploit it.

Which leads us directly to the May 5th press release where the company fulfills the implied promise that they would update upon receipt of the letter of intent.

Under the proposed terms, National Standard would fund the purchase of the required renewable energy equipment and power station as well as pay for related development costs to become operational. National Standard will lease the equipment to Solar Wind Energy Tower, Inc. for a 20 year term. National Standard has developed with Solar Wind Energy Tower a financial plan that details the steps, conditions and requirements necessary to satisfy National Standard's investment requirements for this project. These requirements relate to customary construction risks, operational risks and performance guarantees related to the sale of power long term to qualified buyers. Solar Wind Energy Tower is currently in negotiations to provide these milestones and project deliverables to advance the projects progress towards closing on the investment capital and lease. A definitive agreement has not yet been finalized between the parties.

Which leads me BACK to your post 6109

As for your scenario … you’ve taken mine and re-jiggered it. If the letter of intent I received from the bank says that it “will” finance the purchase if I satisfy x, y, z conditions – then it’s not non-binding and it would be obligated to finance once I satisfied the conditions – assuming it didn’t expire before the six months it took me to get my act together – and there would be a problem if it reneged on that obligation. In my scenario, as in SWET’s, the bank didn’t say it “will”, it said come back and we’ll talk.

Please note that in the May 5th press release the company uses exactly the same language when describing the letter of intent as you use to say that the letter of intent is NOT non-binding. however, the company does concede in the press release that "A definitive agreement has not yet been finalized between the parties."

Now we're back to that term definitive that I defined as an adjective earlier. I believe the company is using it slightly differently in this case. Such as, having its fixed and final form; providing a solution or final answer; satisfying all criteria

Obviously, since it's not A finalized definitive agreement it cannot be confused as being BINDING.

With all that being said, it leads me BACK to your post 6109 where you say...

What I said (and what I’ve consistently said) was: “What I'm saying is that the May 5 press release is misleading” and that SWET is suggesting that it has something that it does not. You see, I even said what I was saying. It’s clear from postings here that people, now armed with the knowledge that there’s only a non-binding letter of intent, still believe that SWET has more than it has.

The company has said in it's May 5th press release that it has a non-binding letter of intent from National Standard stating that National Standard would fund the purchase of the required renewable energy equipment and power station as well as pay for related development costs to become operational.

And the headline says Solar Wind Energy Tower, Inc. Obtains Conditional Financing Commitment for First Solar Tower in Arizona

It's obviously conditional...

It's obviously non-binding...

How is anything they've said misleading?

The company is VERY clear about what they have.

Can you please describe what it is that you think they have?

Just trying to end this...