|
|
Enron Mail |
9.6 Additional Factory Testing
. In the event that Purchaser reasonably determines that a factory test=20 conducted by Seller or its Subcontractors was not conducted properly or the= =20 results of the test were inconclusive Purchaser may required Seller to repe= at=20 such test in a fashion as to obtain conclusive results. =20 Purchaser may request Seller or its Subcontractors to perform one or more = of=20 its factory tests using more precise instrumentation than planned, or=20 conduct a test not in Seller=01,s or its Subcontractor=01,s standard factor= y test=20 program. In the case of a Purchaser request for an additional non standard= =20 factory test the conduct of such test shall be subject to mutual agreement = by=20 the parties. =20 In the event as a result of such Purchaser requested repeat test, ormore=20 precise instrumentation or non standard test the Equipment is found to not= =20 be compliant with the requirements of this Agreement, Seller shall correct= =20 such noncompliance and the cost and time associated with such testing shall= =20 be to Seller=01,s account. If the Equipment is found to be compliant with = this=20 Agreement, Seller shall be eligible for a Change Orderfor the cost and time= =20 associated with such testing. ---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 05/21/2001 12:27= =20 PM --------------------------- John G Rigby@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 05/17/2001 05:13 AM To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Scott=20 Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ed B= =20 Hearn III/HOU/ECT@ECT, pthompson@akllp.com, Scott=20 Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John=20 Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bill Williams/PDX/ECT@E= CT cc: =20 Subject: World Hunger- Section 9.6 Additional tests Per the conference call of Wednesday, I revised Section 9.6 (with Scott=20 fixing my drafting). Attached document contains a redline of the section. I think this can be included in the version that goes to GE. I discussed t= he=20 concept with Jim Sutherland- he agreed with relaxing the unilateral=20 requirement in the case of GE. We would not want to do this in the case of= =20 other vendors.
|