Replies to post #186910 on Eternal Image Inc (fka ETNLQ)

[Sharkbite fka Lurker from Mars]

Wow, now thats twisting the pretzel

MATW doesn't get to keep those products

the Products shall be non-exclusive

and if EI takes them back the carrier they chose becomes liable or in MATW's view

Risk of loss regarding said units shall forever pass to Eternal Image upon delivery to Eternal Image’s carrier

Now, you still would have to deal with breach of contract, which the BINDING LOU is

If EI needs the inventory they should buy the products so they can sell them - if EI does not need the inventory MATW can not sell them on their own because MATW has breached the deal and is no longer authorized to sell the products - so it behooves MATW to follow through (my interpretation)

I don't even follow this logic below in quotes

and if EI is unable to buy the products back from matthews the LOU is history

if MATW doesn't abide by the LOU its toast then, not if EI doesn't buy the inventory from MATW

The ragged tooth shark can turn on a dime and twist itself up, much like your post does

This is clearly understandable if you read what you posted

BTW, when did EI have the ST and Vatican products for sale?

I must have missed that when talking with Eternal Image

MLB has been their lobster and butter for the most part

Vatican should blow that out of the water

[Sharkbite fka Lurker from Mars]

PS: didn't I read in the convention article that MATW already has 200 orders for the Star Trek urn?

Thats 2 years of a successful product and it isn't even receivable until next month

I wonder what the Vatican pre-orders are like?

[midrew]

"it would seem that if matthews has no more success with a vatican product or a star trek product on this go around...."

I don't think Matthews is going to lock themselves into anything they can't wiggle out of. I don't care if they used the word "binding". If these products don't sell in the marketplace, Matthews moves on. This is probably not huge on their radar screen. You've seen how much and how often Matthews makes reference to this relationship. Maybe EI gets a one-time dose of revenue, but then what. The demand magically explodes? I thought ESPN, a few years back, did a nice job for EI. That was years ago, and we've seen how people jumped out of their seats and said "that's for me". EI may be making a one-time sale (or maybe not), but if their isn't a continued market for this, then what?

[caseytrader]

Not an opinion, just the truth.

I intended to caution about these words umr used to end the post, not who or what entity may interpret the post as libel. As always, everyone is entitled to their opinion, it just needs to be stated as such even if every word is believed to be absolute. Like you, umr's posts offer a balance to more positive posts and are welcome. I believe most who regularly post here recognize it is as an expression of firm belief. However, this is an open forum and it's important to express it as such. Again, this is just my opinion and I may be more sensitive since I deal with the maze of legalities in media on a daily basis.

One day, when I move on to a new career, I'll share some of the absolutely insane hurdles for each video I produce. Best to you, Larry.