re: the dodgy russian deal....... BazzaroidWhy don't you post...

re: the dodgy russian deal....... Bazzaroid
Why don't you post all of the text from SS, instead of one small part ?
Is that what you call creative editing ?

It answers all of your questions and explains exactly what the situation is.

---------------------------------

QUOTE (quiktrade_1 @ Wednesday 25/05/05 01:02pm)

I spoke with Soon on the phone and I also had an email sent to me from Mr Blass.
My statement was this:

The contract is binding and they can take legal action for any damages that may arise from Techno imports not honouring their side of the deal.
It was a priority to have the contracts signed by an Australian company so they could enforce the terms.

This statement is exactly what Soon told me word for word.
The problem with the bozzo on HC is he doesn't understand contract wording.
The contract is binding, and what that means is two parties have signed an agreement defining their obligations.
If SKG were to expend $1 to meet their obligations, and Techno failed to meet their obligation (that is to say not deposit the money) then SKG are able to take legal action to recover any associated costs.
The key word is damages Bazzaroid is confusing this term with punative.
Damages are claims that a company can make for associated costs or damage to it's reputation.
Penalty clauses are another kettle of fish.

I sign many contracts every year, one thing I can tell you is they are always in favour of the one that holds the cash.
It's the old saying "he who holds the gold makes the rules".
In Hind-site it would have been best if SKG secured some sort of deposit up front, this would have given the market more confidence.

The problem with most contracts of this size, is the whole deal would be dependent on finance, I seriously doubt if many companies would have a lazy $29 million sitting in their bank account, which means this deal with be settled by bankers.
Techno imports have sourced the best possible price with SKG and the two parties have agreed (in writing) what their obligations are, which are 100% binding.

This brings us to the second part of my statement:

Both Soon and Blass have confirmed that whilst all signs to date are positive, the deal is not in the bag until the cash is in the bank.

What this means is their client has to clear some hurdles, If the deal is worth $29 million AU then what is the total project worth ? Obviously anything on this scale has red tape attached.
The client obviously wants the product, or they wouldn't have placed the order, but will they come up with the cash by June 30 ? No one can say for sure if this will happen, and this is why the stock is priced at a serious discount.

I have Challenged Bazzaroid to send my text to Mr Soon, and ask him to confirm it for two reasons.

(1) I am sick of doing the leg work for Barry, he is a raving lunartic.
If he doubts my words then he should do his own research, the best way for him to do that would be to do what I told him to do.

(2) I don't like bugging Directors that help me out, what sort of an idiot talks to a director....asks him several questions, and then sends him an email asking him to confirm the conversation. I have Spoken to Mr Soon for years, and I'd like to preserve that relationship. Their is no need to have this conversation confirmed, because I have not said one thing that the market doesn't already know.

Now that I have taken the time to answer your questions Quik, will you answer two for me ?

Have you ever known me to lie on a stock forum, or do I tell it like it is ?
Have you ever Know Barry to lie on a stock forum or does he tell it like it is ?
I invite you to read through the posts on HC, and voice your comments.

Regards, to you and your wife

Tex.