Message-ID: <970086.1075846004566.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: kay.mann@enron.com
To: kathleen.carnahan@enron.com
Subject: Re: Consequential damages
Cc: carlos.sole@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: carlos.sole@enron.com
X-From: Kay Mann
X-To: Kathleen Carnahan
X-cc: Carlos Sole
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_3\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

When we were part of Julia's group, waivers of consequentials in CA's were 
not standard. I don't know if this was due to an ENA policy (doubtful).

 If we are the one giving important information, we shouldn't want to waive 
it automatically, because consequentials will be the most likely result of 
the other party's breach. Therefore, in unilateral agreements where we are 
giving the info, I wouldn't want the waiver.  In the reciprocals it would 
depend on the circumstance.  If the other party is doing most of the sharing, 
I would want it.

What say you, Carlos?


Kay


   
	
	
	From:  Kathleen Carnahan                           04/10/2001 03:24 PM
	

To: Carlos Sole/NA/Enron@Enron, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: Consequential damages

I am going to add this to our forms of CA's, okay?

Neither party shall be liable or have any responsibility to the other party 
for any indirect, special, consequential, punitive or other delay-related or 
performance-related damages including, without limitation, lost earnings, 
production or profits allegedly caused by any claim or action, whether it is 
based in whole or in part on contract, negligence, strict liability, tort, 
statutory or any other theory of liability.

K-