|
|
Enron Mail |
Ed,
We have removed the specific examples of Force Majeure as not being needed because the revised 11.2 defines force majeure as an event not anticipated as of the date hereof, which is not within the reasonable control of the party and which by the exercise of due diligence such party is unable to overcome or obtain a commercially reasonable substitute performance thereof, all without listing specific types of events which might be considered. You are correct in presuming that force majeure cannot be claimed for economic purposes which is the reason for the underlined clause in the preceding sentence. By example, assuming that more than one transporter could be used to effectuate deliveries to a particular point, if the transporter utilized by a party experienced an event of force majeure, the Enron revision would require a party to continue performance by obtaining transportation on another transporter, irrespective of the cost. I trust that this answers your questions. If not, please feel free to call me at (713)853-6895. Jared Kaiser 10/24/2000 08:42 AM To: Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Amendment 11.2 to the Gisb Dan, Ed Fernandez with The Energy Authority replied to our GISB contract with the following questions. Could you please address and copy me with your response. Thanks for your help, Jared ---------------------- Forwarded by Jared Kaiser/HOU/ECT on 10/24/2000 08:41 AM --------------------------- "Ed Fernandez" <EFernandez@teainc.org< on 10/23/2000 04:37:09 PM To: Jared.Kaiser@enron.com cc: Subject: Amendment 11.2 to the Gisb Disregard my question about the arbitration process. AAA selects 5, Enron/Tea can strike 2 and then AAA can appoint the one arbitrator. But even after that, Enron/TEA can challenge AAA selection. In short, we have no problem with Enron's arbitration language. ----- Forwarded by Ed Fernandez/TEA on 10/23/00 05:35 PM ----- Ed Fernandez To: Jared.Kaiser@enron.com 10/23/00 cc: 05:07 PM Subject: Amendment 11.2 to the Gisb Jared, Our atty suggests we find get clarification on a couple of issues regarding your amendments: Special Provision 11.1: T GISB is already fairly broad in scope "...any cause not reasonably withing the control of the party claiming suspension...." The amendment to 11.2 repeats the same, but removes specific examples. 1. Why are the specific examples removed? 2. Am I correct in presuming that Enron wants to make it clear that Force Majuere cannot be claimed for economic purposes? Special Provision 13.9: Under the AAA rules, is only one arbitrator selected from the very beginning, or are a few arbitrators selected initially, and then each party can pick and choose until eventually there is only one official arbitrator? Like a jury selection...sort of. Thanks, Ed
|