Solar Wind Energy Tower Inc. (fka SWET)

[Cycleman]

You've made my point for me, so thank you. You see, you seem to get it but then you manage to lose it. To quote:

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.

You say that you get that it's non-binding and that you've explained that "by design [it's] non-binding. But then you go and lose it when you assert that Nat Std could be liable for damages if it backs out of the deal. That's just it though. There is no "deal." Non-binding means that the parties are not bound to the promises they've made (assuming they've made them). So there's really nothing for Nat Std to back out of and nothing to be liable for if it did.

I'll give you one thing though, it did not occur to me to go back to March to look for something about the letter of intent since the PR was released in May and made no mention of anything in March (though the S-1 does refer to March) so I guess you got me there.

You seem to be suggesting that the use of the word "definitive" in a letter to shareholders about a future letter of intent to be entered into with a third party seems to carry some weight in the binding nature of the letter. I assure you it does not. In other words, it is a weak point. You need to look to the four corners of the letter of intent to determine whether and to what extent it actually fixes any obligations. A letter to shareholders would not be relevant.

And yes, I find the PR misleading. It never says letter of intent, talks about conditional financing and to me it suggests that there's more there than there is. You're happy and don't think so. Let's just leave it at that.