General Discussion Topics, page-26525

Good questions. Not sure I would speculate too much as to whether the fact that Piedmont may or may not have a Customer affects the existing agreement . I would think it is more the contractual wording itself that governs where we go from here with the Piedmont agreement.

For instance , you can't really agree on a delivery date when you potentially don't have a Customer who has agreed to Buy it. So if Sayona never mutually agrees to a delivery date , the agreement is not worth anything because it would appear that it is contingent to BOTH parties agreeing to a delivery date of between 2023 and 2024.....with anything beyond that subject to commercial and delivery re-negotiations I would think .

The other thing in the ' What if's ' bucket is that what if Tesla decided to come directly to Sayona . I hardly think that Piedmont as a Shareholder with BOD representation and a further agreement with Quebec and I.Q could say NO by exercising its rights of its contract with Sayona. Because if they did , this would contravene and almost stymie or handicap Sayona in carrying out its own commercial undertakings of its operations .......potentially making its deal and contract with Piedmont if it went hostile to an ' Illegal ' contract given their Related Party status.

And so it becomes almost untenable that a stake holder with ONLY 25% interest can have and be able to yield so much economic influence over the Company and its operations.

So yeah I would reckon as I have stated all along that the Contract with Piedmont is Mute and was mainly just ' Fluff ' to add strength to Sayona's NAL BID at the time.

Because mate , I can't honestly see how you can ' swoop ' on and include the NAL spodumene in an agreement when you didn't know that you would even be successful in the Bidding process. So the agreement was just ' Cosmetic ' in my opinion.

In terms of the Carbonate and Hydroxides , Sayona ALWAYS has he right to add value to its product mix at any stage in the process it wishes subject to the availability of capital etc...etc , and which the Piedmont agreement did NOT specify that they had the rights to ALL lithium products produced in the same way as Nemaska originally did with Vision Lithium some years ago with their various ' Marketing ' agreements.

And that's another fair point in highlighting that the agreement with Piedmont is NOT even a marketing agreement where they specifically have the rights to ' Market ' Sayona's spodumene to other potential customers. So I would think that Sayona or its shareholders could challenge the agreement on this basis as well.