Someone said that AF and CRO have 'egg on their face' but surely...

Someone said that AF and CRO have 'egg on their face' but surely the ASX does too and I just want to point out a few things in relation to that .CRO requested a trading halt on July 12th for 'first contracted revenues under the Referral Agreements with Mastercard and Fresh Supply Co.' These agreements DO exist, albeit yet to become binding. For MasterCard and Fresh Supply to be involved, it can reasonably be assumed these are big- not Joe Bloggs wanting $1000 to buy seed potatoes. Further, unlike another poster asserts, these types of large funding agreements are not handed out like lollypops. MasterCard would be aware of the revenue implications, so would Fresh Supply, and thus the over exuberance of David. It is also reasonable to assume that large contracts, probably cross-border, would be reported to the ASX. So on July 12th, if the ASX deemed that these contracts were not ready to be announced under listing rule 3.1, then by July 13th, the company should have been informed, reinstated to trading and an announcement to the effect that the final details of the contracts were yet to be finalised. Would this have been somewhat embarrassing for CRO? Yes. But it would also have allowed the shares to trade and permitted shareholders and potential shareholders to buy, sell or hold based on the knowledge available. However, it is clear that there was much back a forth between CRO and ASX and this was totally unnecessary if there was nothing worth reporting. NINE days later, we have a pathetic announcement from the ASX stating that, 'Invigo Pty Ltd has signed two non-binding, indicative term sheets to provide trade facilities to two customers', and 'the non-binding term sheets are not material to the Company.' ' Non binding agreements' or 'heads of agreements' are the agreed upon commercial terms of business between the parties, and they CAN be legally binding if this is written into the agreement.
So 2 contracts HAVE been signed. Are they legally binding? It doesn't say. What are they INDICATIVE of? Future revenue and a future relationship between the parties! So the ASX would have us believe that 2 large companies nutted out and agreed to all the commercial terms and conditions and signed contracts with Invigo, via MasterCard, to be provided with funding because they had nothing better to do with their time, and these are not material to CRO? This is a heads you win, tails I lose situation. If CRO hadn't reported the signed contracts, would they have been in breach? I suspect so. And if they shouldn't have reported them, then they should have been told so immediately and allowed to continue trading.