|
|
Enron Mail |
I'm not particularly wild about many of the changes proposed by GE. Seems
that it would be a good idea to get a consensus on how to respond. Here are the issues I see: Indemnity issues: They should indemnify us from claims by their employees/subcontractors. Indemnity should be triggered by strict liability as well as negligence. What is a cognizant government? Limit of liability issues: They want to limit their indemnity obligation to 100% of purchase price. They want the limit of liability to apply to gross negligence, if possible. They don't want to clarify that they have to indemnify us for another party's claim for consequentials (as in a personal injury claim). We've don't have anything concrete on assignment yet. Comments? Sheila has asked that we change Wednesday's call to 1100 Central, or 100 Central if 1100 doesn't work. Is this a problem? Kay They should have to ---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 09/11/2000 04:07 PM --------------------------- michael.barnas@ps.ge.com on 09/07/2000 07:46:07 PM To: stephen.swift@ps.ge.com, Sheila.Tweed.@enron.com, Roseann.Engeldorf@enron.com, Kay.Mann@enron.com, Scott.Dieball@enron.com, Martin.W.Penkwitz@enron.com cc: kent.shoemaker@ae.ge.com Subject: GE Language Folks, Having conferred at last with my colleagues, I can now forward to you our draft language for the Indemnity and LOL clauses. As Steve mentioned in his earlier message, he has suggested some issues to discuss which could bring us closer to resolution on that issue. Please let me know if you have any question! Best regards, Mike g _____________ Michael C. Barnas Counsel, Power Plants Commercial Operations GE Power Systems One River Road - Building 37, Room 307 Schenectady, NY 12345 USA Phone 8*235-7602 (518) 385 7602 Fax 8*235 5466 (518) 385 5466 Mobile 518 369 9538 - MajorClausesGE01.doc
|