News Focus
News Focus
icon url

SEARAY53

10/22/11 11:33 PM

#36488 RE: gharma #36487

You have made it very clear and thank you very much..That puts me at rest on the matter, and I hope others. Thank you for a great in put on this matter. Have a great weekend, much thanks!!
icon url

erin2000

10/23/11 12:34 PM

#36504 RE: gharma #36487

That's the same way I read the terms. The only question for me, and is always the case with agreements like this, is the definition of "breach of contract". Failure to perform is a breach of contract but not sure what failure to perform is. Would love to see a quantitative addendum that spells out what non performance means.

During the time when the AMF allegation first surfaced, I talked to Robert about my concern for him taking this technology elsewhere. At that time, he advised that he was very pleased with WDRP and their work to date in lining up distribution, potential manufacturers, etc. As much as we like to criticize Martel and Andrew, there seems to be a lot that they do behind the scenes. Robert does not, nor does he care to, drive the agreements with any other 3rd parties. He is solely the technology guru and the licensor, all other activity is driven by WDRP (Martel and Andrew). Now, Robert's position and feelings could have changed, who knows, but this is the impression he gave me back then.