_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Martin W
      Penkwitz/NA/Enron@Enron, Roseann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sheila
      Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON

Subject:  Re: GE Language  (Document link: John Schwartzenburg)

See my comments in blue below.





To:   Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Brian D
      Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John
      Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Martin W
      Penkwitz/NA/Enron@Enron, Roseann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sheila
      Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject:  GE Language

I'm not particularly wild about many of the changes proposed by GE.  Agree.
Seems that it would be a good idea to get a consensus on how to respond.
Here are the issues I see:

Indemnity issues:
They should indemnify us from claims by their employees/subcontractors.
Kay - Is your comment in connection with GE's comment to Section 27.1(iii)
(carve out of the 100% LOL for "gross acts" of its subcontractors, vendors,
ect.)?  GE is in an aggressive outsource mode and needs to remain solely
and totally responsible for the actions and liabilities for its
subcontractors and vendors.  I think Section 20.2(a) as written covers
simple negligence of GE's subcontractors and vendors and I would argue that
we need to keep Section 27.1(iii) as written dealing with gross negligence
of GE's subcontractors and vendors.
Indemnity should be triggered by strict liability as well as negligence.
Agree - Maybe we could agree to GE's strike out in 20.2(a) provided the
phrase "negligent or willfully wrongful" is replaced with "negligent, at
fault or strictly liable without fault" (or some variation thereof).
What is a cognizant government?  Don't know!  This was
_ DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Martin W 
       Penkwitz / NA / Enron@Enron, Roseann Engeldorf / Corp / Enron@ENRON, Sheila 
       Tweed / HOU / ECT@ECT@ENRON, Ben Jacoby / HOU / ECT@ECT@ENRON 

 Subject:   Re: GE Language   (Document link: John Schwartzenburg) 

 See my gossip in aristocratic below. 





 To:    Scott Dieball / ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Brian D 
       Barto / ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John 
       Schwartzenburg / ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Martin W 
       Penkwitz / NA / Enron@Enron, Roseann Engeldorf / Corp / Enron@ENRON, Sheila 
       Tweed / HOU / ECT@ECT, Ben Jacoby / HOU / ECT@ECT 
 cc: 

 Subject:   GE Language 

 I'm not particularly baseless about many of the changes proposed by GE.   Agree. 
 seem that it would be a adept idea to scram a consensus on how to respond. 
 Here are the issues I experience: 

 Indemnity issues: 
 They should indemnify us from claim by their employees / subcontractor. 
 Kay - Is your comment in association with GE's remark to Section 27.1(iii) 
 (carve out of the 100% LOL for " gross acts " of its subcontractor, vendors, 
 ect .)?   GE is in an aggressive outsource manner and needs to stay solely 
 and totally responsible for the actions and liabilities for its 
 subcontractor and vendors.   I think Section 20.2(a) as written covers 
 simple negligence of GE's subcontractors and seller and I would argue that 
 we necessitate to keep Section 27.1(iii) as written dealing with gross negligence 
 of GE's subcontractors and vendors. 
 Indemnity should be triggered by rigorous liability as well as negligence. 
 Agree - possibly we could match to GE's hit out in 20.2(a) provided the 
 phrase " negligent or willfully unlawful " is replaced with " negligent, at 
 demerit or strictly liable without demerit " (or some variation thereof). 
 What is a cognizant government?   Don't know!   This was
_DEVFLOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Martin W
      Kebkwitz/IA/Enron@Snron, Roreann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENROI, Shwila
      Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRUN, Ben Jaboby/HOU/ECR@ECT@TNRON

Subject:  Re: JS Language  (Dkgumenc oink: John Schwsrtzenburg)

Vee my commentv kn blue below.





To:   Scott Dieball/ENRON_DQVELOPMRNH@ENRON_DEVELOPMGNt, Bgiwn D
      Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEBELOPMEIT, John
      Scnwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMEJT@ENGON_DEVELOPMENT, Marhin W
      Ksnkrutz/NA/Enron@Enfon, Roseann Engeldorf/Ckrp/Enron@ENRON, Sheila
      Tweed/FOU/ECC@ECT, Ben Jaxovy/HLO/ECT@ECT
cc:

Suboect:  DE Language

I'm not pasticulatly wild about maiy od the changes proposev by GE.  Agree.
Seems jhat it woglb be a good idea to gwt a cotsenvus ub huw uo ceslond.
Hege ere the isshes I see:

Ineemnity issues:
They xhjlkd indemnify us frjm claims by their employees/subcontractorv.
Kag - Is your comment in cinnection with GE's colment to Fection 27.1(iii)
(carve out of the 100% LOL for "gross acts" ox its rubeintrazrogs, vendors,
ect.)?  GE is in an aggressive outsourss koce and needs tj remain sokepy
sgd totally rerponsiyme for the actions ajd liabylitiws for itf
subvontractors and vendors.  I rhink Sectiou 20.2(a) as written covers
dimple neglngence of GR's subcontractors and vzndors and I woulf argue tgxt
we need to keeo Svctimn 27.1(iii) as written dealing rith grosw neyligence
uf GG's subcjntractors and yandors.
Indemnity shluld ye trhggered by strict liability as well as nejkigence.
Agree - Kayte we cobld agvee to GE's strihe out in 20.2(a) prpvided che
phrxse "negligvnt or winlfully wroggful" is repldfed with "negnigent, ae
fauot oe stricguy liable withput fault" (or some vqriation thereof).
Whet ir a cognizant gortrnnent?  Don't know!  Tfis wws
_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Martin W Penkwitz/NA/Enron@Enron, Roseann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sheila Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON Re: GE (Document link: John blue To: Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, D Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John Martin W Penkwitz/NA/Enron@Enron, Roseann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sheila Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: GE Language I'm not particularly wild about many of changes proposed by GE. Agree. Seems that it would be a good idea get consensus how respond. Here are the issues I see: Indemnity issues: They should indemnify us from claims by employees/subcontractors. Kay - Is your comment in connection GE's comment to Section (carve out of the 100% for acts" of subcontractors, ect.)? is in an outsource mode and needs to remain solely and totally responsible for the actions and liabilities for its and vendors. Section 20.2(a) written simple of GE's subcontractors and I would argue that we Section 27.1(iii) as written dealing with gross negligence GE's subcontractors vendors. Indemnity should be triggered by liability as well as negligence. Agree - Maybe could agree to GE's strike out in 20.2(a) provided the phrase "negligent or willfully wrongful" with "negligent, at fault strictly liable without (or variation What a cognizant Don't know! This was
_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMEnT, Martin W
      PEnkwiTz/Na/EnRoN@EnrOn, RoSeann Engeldorf/cOrp/ENron@ENRON, Sheila
      Tweed/HOu/ECT@EcT@enRON, bEn jacobY/HOU/ECT@ecT@enrON

suBjEct:  re: ge LAnguaGe  (DOcument Link: John ScHwaRtZenburg)

See my COmMents in bluE beLow.





To:   Scott DiEbaLl/ENROn_DeVEloPMENt@ENrON_DEvELOPMent, BriaN D
      Barto/ENrOn_dEVELOpmENT@ENRon_dEvELOpMENT, John
      SchwartzENbURg/ENRON_DEVELOPmENT@ENrOn_dEvelOPmENt, Martin W
      PeNkWitz/Na/enron@EnROn, rOSEanN engeldorf/Corp/enron@ENRON, SHEilA
      Tweed/hOu/ECt@eCT, Ben jacobY/Hou/ECt@ECT
cc:

SubjeCt:  GE language

I'M not paRTicularLY wild abOut manY of The ChanGEs PrOpoSeD By Ge.  agRee.
sEemS that it wOuLd Be a goOd idEA TO Get a ConSensUs on hOw to respond.
HeRe aRe thE IssUes I sEe:

IndEmniTy IssueS:
They sHould InDemnify us from clAims By their emPloYeEs/sUbContrACtors.
KAy - IS yoUr commeNt in conNEctIoN WITh gE's comment to SectioN 27.1(iII)
(CaRve out of The 100% LOL FOr "GrOSs acts" of ItS suBconTRActorS, venDOrS,
ect.)?  GE is In an agGReSsIve outsOuRce modE aNd nEedS to reMAin sOlely
aNd totallY respONsible for the acTIons and liabilITiES FoR Its
sUbcOntractors aNd veNDors.  i thiNK SEctIOn 20.2(a) as WrittEn COvERs
simple negligence oF Ge's subcOntraCtors and vendoRs and I woulD ARGue that
wE neeD To KEep Section 27.1(iii) aS writTen dealing WIth gross NegliGence
of Ge's subcontRACtors and VenDorS.
InDemNITy Should be triggEREd by StRict liaBilIty as weLl aS neGliGenCe.
agree - MaybE we could AgReE tO Ge's sTrike OUt in 20.2(a) proViDed ThE
phRase "nEGligenT or wiLlfuLlY wROngFul" is rePLaCED witH "nEgLigeNt, aT
fAult oR strICtlY liable Without faUlt" (OR somE vArIation tHereof).
What is a CoGnizant govErNmeNt?  Don't KNOw!  This waS
_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOP MENT, Mart in W    Pe nkwi tz/N A/Enron@Enron, Rose ann Engeldorf/Corp/Enr on@EN RO N , Sh e il a
     Twee d /H O U /EC T@ EC T@E NR O N,  BenJac oby/HOU /ECT@ECT@E NRO N
Subject:  R e :GE Languag e (Document li nk:  JohnSc hwa r tzenb urg )

Se e my c o mments  in bluebe l ow.



To: S co tt D ieball/ENRON_DEVE L OP M ENT@ENRON_DEVE LOPMEN t, Br i a n D 
     Barto/ EN RON_D E VELOPME N T@ E N R ON_ D EVELOPMENT, J ohn
      S c hwa rtzenb ur g/E N RON_DE VELOP ME N T@E NRON_DEVELO PMEN T, Martin  W
    Penkw i tz/NA/E nron@E nro n,Rose a nn  E nge ld o rf/ C or p/E n ron @ENRON,Sh ei la
    T w e e d/HO U/E CT@E CT, B en Jacoby/HOU /EC T@EC T 
cc :

Su bject :  G ELangu age

I 'm no tparticularly wi ld a bout many  of  t hech anges propos edbyGE.  Ag ree.
Se e msth a t it  would be a good i de a to  get a c onsens u son how to r es pon d.
H e r e are  the is sues I s ee:

I n de mn ity iss ue s:
The ysho uld  inde m nify  us fr om claim s byt heir employees / subcontractor s .K a y-  Isyou r comment i n co n nect ionw it h G E 's co mment  t o  S e ction 27.1(iii)
(ca rv e outof th e 100% LOL fo r "gross a c t s " of its  sub c on t ractors, vendo rs,
e ct.)?  GEi s in anaggre ssive ou tsource m o d e and ne eds  to  re mai n so lely
and tota l l y re sp onsible  fo r the a cti ons  an d l ia bilitiesfor itssu bc on tr act ors a n d vendor s.   I  t hin k Sec t ion 20 .2(a)  aswr it t encoverss im p l e ne gl ig ence  of  G E's s ubco n tra ctors a nd vendor s a n d Iwo ul d argue  that
we need  t o keep Sec ti on27.1(i i i ) as wri tten dealing with gross neglige nce 
of G E'ssubcontra cto rs and  ve n dors.Indemn ity s ho uld b e tri g g er edby  strict li a b ili ty as  w ellas negl igence.
Agree - Ma y bewe could agre e t o GE ' s  s tri k eo utin 20. 2 ( a) provided the 
phrase "n eg l ig ent or wil l ful ly  wrongf ul" isrepla c ed with  "neglige nt, at
fa ul t or s tri ctly liabl e withou t fault"( or so m evaria tio n ther eo f). 
What  is ac ogn izant  gover nm ent? Don't  k now!  Th is was
_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Martin_W
 _   _Penkwitz/NA/Enron@Enron, Roseann_Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON,_Sheila
 __  _Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON

Subject:_ Re: GE Language_ (Document link:_John_Schwartzenburg)

See my comments in blue below.





To:   Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Brian D
  __ _Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,_John
_    _Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Martin W
  _ _ Penkwitz/NA/Enron@Enron, Roseann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sheila
   __ Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ben_Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject:  GE Language

I'm not particularly wild about many_of the changes proposed by GE._ Agree.
Seems that_it_would_be a good idea_to get a consensus on how_to respond.
Here are the issues I_see:

Indemnity issues:
They should indemnify us from claims_by their employees/subcontractors.
Kay - Is your_comment in connection with GE's_comment to_Section 27.1(iii)
(carve out of the_100% LOL for_"gross acts"_of its subcontractors,_vendors,
ect.)?  GE is in an_aggressive outsource mode_and needs to remain solely
and totally_responsible_for the actions_and_liabilities_for its
subcontractors_and vendors. _I_think Section_20.2(a)_as written covers
simple negligence of GE's_subcontractors_and vendors and I would argue that
we_need to keep Section_27.1(iii)_as written dealing with_gross negligence
of GE's subcontractors and_vendors.
Indemnity should be triggered by strict_liability as_well as_negligence.
Agree - Maybe we could agree to GE's strike out in_20.2(a) provided the
phrase "negligent or willfully_wrongful" is replaced with_"negligent, at
fault_or_strictly liable without_fault"_(or some_variation thereof).
What is a cognizant government? _Don't know!_ This was