|
|
Enron Mail |
Greg,
I've read the opinion and agree with your summary of it. However, it doesn't answer the question for me as to whether a Mississippi court would uphold such a clause, or how other contracting parties have dealt with the issue. Due to the importance of the issue I will consult with a Mississippi firm to get a handle on the question. Thanks for your help, Kay "Evans, Greg" <GEvans@KSLAW.com< on 03/02/2001 04:57:22 PM To: "'Kay.Mann@enron.com'" <Kay.Mann@enron.com< cc: "Keffer, John" <JKeffer@KSLAW.com< Subject: Mississippi AG's Opinion on Section 100 As an update to my earlier e-mail, I located both the Miss. AG's Opinion letter construing Section 100 and the initial request from a State entity that prompted the Opinion. Assuming a State entity is a party to a contract, the AG's Opinion does not opine that Section 100 prohibits contractual clauses that exclude consequential damages. Instead, the AG's office could not find any statutory authority that allows a public officer to contractually limit a private vendor's liability to the State entity. Although the AG did not state that such clauses are prohibited, the AG held that it could not affirmatively sanction such clauses in the absence of statutory authority. Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
|