Running discussion on SP, page-20133

fair call,

the point I was making is that if the Chinese truly believed and honoured the logic of mou's being binding. how have avz ended up with 5. surely the first one would have been the binding contract and all others would have never eventuated.

i worked for CITIC group, the Chinese culture is... interesting, undoubtedly. business conducted quite differently. but I don't subscribe the the idea that an MoU has a meaning anything other than a formalisation of 2 parties (or more) are in discussions, directly related to the company's business doings, so as to ensure continuous disclosure policies are maintained.

SF2TH