 > > FORWARD THIS MANTRA E-MAIL TO AT LEAST 5 PEOPLE
>   > > > > AND
>   > > > > > YOUR LIFE WILL IMPROVE.
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > 0-4 people: Your life will improve slightly.
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > 5-9 people: Your life will improve to your
>   > > > liking.
>   > > > > >  >>
> I think that I agree with the points and comments you folks raised in the
first echange on indemnities below, but don't have the document to refer
to. Scott, please drop by and brief me on these.  Cognizant Gov't? Never
heard of  the term, and itis not one of the usual defined terms. Don't know
how it's used here, suggest you decline andmake them clarify.

LOL ISSUES:
1. I suppose that this is a NY law contract. I  do not think you can
effectively limit your liability for gross negligence or wilful misconduct
in NY. Regardless of choice of law, we generally cannot get this limited
or excluded in contracts with owners, either.  I think you should not
accept any GE attempt to limit this by means of the cap on liability or
otherwise, and should avoid muddying the water on the point by taking any
"to the fullest extent permitted by law" clause or other  such stuff as a
compromise. It will be important every time we wrap the GE equipment.

2. Generally, I do not think they should be able to limit their indemnity
for Haz Mat, patents, etc.

3. They have consistently refused to clarify that the indemnity  for all
third party losses includes third party consequentials when Brian or
whoever else over here has been the lead negotiator with GE in the past. I
would like to think that we could get it clarified now that the larger
Enron is working it.  Please try it again if you can.








Scott Dieball
09/11/2000 07:29 PM

To:   Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:   Brian D Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John
      Schwartzenburg/ENRON
> > FORWARD THIS MANTRA E - MAIL TO AT LEAST 5 PEOPLE 
 >    > > > > AND 
 >    > > > > > YOUR LIFE WILL IMPROVE. 
 >    > > > > > 
 >    > > > > > 0 - 4 people: Your biography will better slightly. 
 >    > > > > > 
 >    > > > > > 5 - 9 people: Your life will better to your 
 >    > > > liking. 
 >    > > > > >   > > 
 > I think that I harmonize with the item and comments you folk raised in the 
 first echange on damages below, but don't have the text file to refer 
 to. Scott, please drop by and brief me on these.   Cognizant Gov't? Never 
 hear of   the term, and itis not one of the usual specify terms. Don't know 
 how it's used here, indicate you decline andmake them clarify. 

 LOL ISSUES: 
 1. I suppose that this is a NY law contract. I   do not remember you can 
 effectively limit your liability for gross negligence or wilful wrongdoing 
 in NY. Regardless of choice of law, we generally cannot get this limited 
 or excluded in contract with owners, either.   I think you should not 
 accept any GE attempt to limit this by means of the cap on liability or 
 otherwise, and should avoid muddy the water on the point by take any 
 " to the full extent permitted by law " clause or early   such stuff as a 
 compromise. It will be authoritative every time we wrap the GE equipment. 

 2. by and large, I do not think they should be able to limit their indemnity 
 for Haz Mat, patents, etc. 

 3. They have consistently refused to clarify that the damages   for all 
 third party losses includes third party consequentials when Brian or 
 whoever else over here has been the lead negotiator with GE in the past. I 
 would like to think that we could get it clarified now that the big 
 Enron is working it.   Please try it again if you can. 








 Scott Dieball 
 09/11/2000 07:29 PM 

 To:    Kay Mann / Corp / Enron@ENRON 
 cc:    Brian D Barto / ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John 
       Schwartzenburg / ENRON
 > > VORWARD THIS MANTRA E-MAIU TO AT LEAST 5 KEIPLE
>   > > > > AHD
>   > > > > > YOUR LIFE WILL IMPROVE.
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > 0-4 people: Your life dill imprlve sligytly.
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > 5-9 peoije: Ykmr liye will improve jo your
>   > > > liking.
>   > > > > >  >>
> I think that I agree with the points and cokmfnts you folks raixqd ih the
first echange on indemnities gelow, blt don't have the cocument to refer
to. Scott, oleade drop by and briff me on thgae.  Xognizant Gox't? Never
heard of  the jerm, and itis not one of the usuxl deyined terms. Din't nnow
how it's used here, suggesb you dacline sndmake them ckarmfy.

LIL ISSUES:
1. I suppose tiat this is a NY law contract. I  do not think yoy xan
efxecthvelh lioit ypud liabllivy for grosa negligencw or wilful miscondice
pm NY. Regardlsss of croice of law, we generally cannot get thps ljmited
or excluded in cobtracts with owners, elther.  I ehink you should not
accept any GE attempt to limid thia by mcans if the cap on liability or
otherwise, and should wbood muddying the cater on the poimt bu taking any
"to the fbmlsst extent permittfd by lww" clquse or ouher  such stuff as a
compromise. Ut will be iiportant every time we wrap thz GE eauipmrnt.

2. Generally, I do not chink fhey should be able fu limit their inaemkitf
for Haz Mat, patents, etc.

3. Trey have ronsixtently refosed to clarify tjat tma indemnity  for apl
thitd pardy losses lncludes third party consequentmels when Briam mr
wvoever ejse oyer here has beqn the lead neyotiator with GE in the past. I
xould like tj think that fg could get iv clarifiqd niw tyat the uarger
Enron is working pt.  Plwase try it again lf yoo dan.








Scott Diebalo
09/11/2000 07:29 KM

Ro:   Kay Mann/Cprp/Dnrjn@VNRPN
sw:   Brian D Tartu/ENFPN_DEVDLOPMENU@ZNRIV_DEVRLOPMENT, John
      Swhwadtzenburg/ENRON
> > FORWARD THIS MANTRA E-MAIL TO 5 > > > > AND > LIFE WILL IMPROVE. > > > > > > > > > 0-4 people: Your life will improve slightly. > > > > > > > > > > > 5-9 people: Your life will improve to your > > > > > > > >> > I think that I agree with the points and comments folks raised in the first echange on indemnities but don't have the to refer to. Scott, please by brief me these. Gov't? heard of the and itis not one of the usual defined terms. Don't know how it's used here, suggest you andmake them ISSUES: 1. suppose this a NY law do not think you can effectively for gross negligence or wilful misconduct in NY. of choice law, we generally cannot get this or excluded in contracts with owners, either. I you should not accept any GE attempt to limit this by means of the cap or otherwise, and should muddying the water the by any the fullest permitted by law" clause or other such stuff as a compromise. will be important every time we wrap the GE equipment. I not think they be able to limit indemnity Haz Mat, patents, etc. have refused the for third party losses includes party consequentials when Brian or else over here has GE in the past. I would like to that we could get it clarified now the larger Enron is working it. Please try it again if you Scott Dieball PM To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Brian D Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Schwartzenburg/ENRON
 > > FORWARD THIS MANTRA E-MAIL TO At LEAST 5 PEOPlE
>   > > > > AND
>   > > > > > yOUr LIfE wILL iMPRoVE.
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > 0-4 people: Your lIFe wiLl improve slightly.
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > 5-9 peoplE: Your LiFE wilL ImProve To your
>   > > > lIKiNG.
>   > > > > >  >>
> i thInK tHat i aGReE with The Points aNd comments You FoLks raised in tHE
fIrst echangE on Indemnities bEloW, but doN't HavE The doCumEnt to Refer
tO. scott, pLease drop By ANd brieF Me on theSE.  coGnizAnt Gov't? Never
heard OF  tHE term, and itis noT one of ThE UsUAL deFinEd terms. Don'T kNow
hoW It's used HErE, SUGgeST you decline anDmake them clARifY.

LOL ISsUeS:
1. I SUppose That tHiS Is a nY law contraCt. I  dO not think You can
EFfectivELy limit Your liAbiLitY for GRoSs NegLiGEncE Or WilFUl mIsconducT
iN Ny. RegaRdleSS OF ChoiCe oF law, We genErally cannot gEt tHis lIMitEd
or eXcludEd in CoNtracTs with OwnerS, eIther.  I think you sHoulD not
accepT anY Ge atTeMpt to LImit thIs bY meAns of thE cap on lIAbiLiTY OR
oTherwise, and should aVoID MuDdying thE water ON tHe POint by taKiNg aNy
"to THE fullEst eXTeNt permitTed by lAW" cLaUse or otHeR  such sTuFf aS a
cOmproMIse. IT will bE importaNt eveRY time we wrap the ge equipment.

2. GenERaLLY, I DO not ThiNk they shoulD be aBLe to LimiT ThEir INdemnIty
foR HAZ MAT, patents, etc.

3. They have CoNsisteNtly rEfused to clariFy that the iNDEMnity  for All
tHIrD Party losses incLudes Third party COnsequenTials When BriaN or
whoeveR ELse over hEre Has BeeN thE LEaD negotiator wiTH gE in ThE past. I
wOulD like to ThiNk tHat We cOuLd get it clArified nOw ThAt ThE laRger
ENRon is worKiNg iT.  PLeaSe try IT again If you Can.








SCoTt dIebAll
09/11/2000 07:29 PM

To:   kAy mANn/CoRp/enRon@EnROn
cC:   BriaN D BaRTo/EnRON_DEVeLOPMENT@EnROn_dEVElOpMeNT, John
      schwartzenburG/EnRON
 > > FORWARD THIS MANTRA E -MAIL TO A T LEA ST5 P EO PLE>  > > > > AND
> > >  > > > YOUR LIFE WILLIMPRO VE . 
> >> > >  >
>  >  > >  >>0- 4 p eo p le : You r l ife wil l improvesli gh tly.
>   > > >> >
>   >> >  > > 5-9 peo ple : Your  l ife willimp roveto you r 
>   >  > > liki ng . 
>   > > > > > >> 
> I  think that I agr e ew ith the points  and c om m en t s  yo u f olks raise din th e 
firste ch a n g e o n  indemnitiesbelow, butd on' t have  t hed ocumen t tore f erto. Scott,plea se drop b y andb rief me on thes e.  Co gni zan t Go v 't ?Nev er hea r dofthe  term, a nd  i tis n ot o n e o f th e u sual  defi ned terms. Do n't  kno w 
ho w it' s use d he re , sug gest y ou de cl ine andmake the m cl arify.

L OLIS SUE S: 
1. I suppos e t hat  this i s a NYl awco n t r ac t. I  do not think  y o u  c an
effec tively li mi t  your li ab ili ty f o r  gros s ne g li gence or  wilfu l  m is conduct 
i n NY.Re gar dle ss of choi ce oflaw, wegener a lly cannot get this limitedo re x cl u dedincontracts w itho wner s, e i th er.  I th ink y ou sh o uld not
accept anyGE  attem pt to  limit this b y means of t h e cap on  lia b il i ty or
otherwis e, an d should a v oid mudd yingthe wate r on thep o int by t aki ngany 
"t o th e fullest ext e n t pe rm itted b y l aw" cla use  or  ot her  such stuf f as a
c om pr om is e.It wi l l be imp or tan teve ry ti m e we w rap t he G Eeq u ipm ent.

2 .  G e n eral ly ,I do  no tthink  the y  sh ould be  able tolim i t th ei rindemni ty
for Haz Ma t,  patents,et c.
3. Th e y  have co nsistently refused to c l arify t hat  theinde mnity  fo r a ll
thi rdp arty l ossesinclu de s t h i rd pa r t ycon se quentialsw h enBrian  o r
wh oever e lse over here hasb een  the lead neg oti ator w it h G E  i n  th ep ast . I
would like to  think tha tw ecould geti t c la rifiednow tha t the largerEnron isworking i t.   Pl e a setry it aga in if yo u can.





S co tt Di eba ll
09/ 11 /20 00 07 :29 PM 
To :   K ay Man n/ Corp/E nron@ EN RON
cc:  Brian D Barto/ENRON_D EVELOP MENT@ ENR ON_DEVELO PME N T,John
     Sc hwartzenbu rg/ ENR ON
 >_> FORWARD_THIS MANTRA E-MAIL TO_AT LEAST_5_PEOPLE
> __> > >_> AND
> _ > > >_> > YOUR_LIFE_WILL IMPROVE.
>   > > > > >
>   > > >_>_> 0-4_people:_Your_life will improve slightly.
> _ > > > >_>
> _ > > > > > 5-9 people:_Your_life will improve_to your
>   > > > liking.
> _ > > > > >_ >>
> I_think_that_I agree with the_points and comments you folks raised_in the
first echange on indemnities below,_but don't have the document to refer
to._Scott, please drop by and brief_me on these.  Cognizant_Gov't? Never
heard_of  the term, and_itis not one_of the_usual defined terms._Don't know
how it's used here, suggest_you decline andmake_them clarify.

LOL ISSUES:
1. I suppose that_this_is a NY_law_contract._I _do not think_you_can
effectively limit_your_liability for gross negligence or wilful_misconduct
in_NY. Regardless of choice of law, we_generally cannot get this_limited
or_excluded in contracts with_owners, either.  I think_you should not
accept any GE attempt_to limit_this by_means of the cap on liability or
otherwise, and should avoid muddying_the water on the point by_taking any
"to the fullest_extent permitted_by_law" clause or_other_ such_stuff as a
compromise. It will be important_every time_we wrap the GE equipment.

2. Generally,_I do not think_they_should be able to limit their_indemnity
for Haz Mat, patents, etc.

3. They_have consistently refused to clarify_that_the_indemnity  for all
third party_losses includes third party consequentials when_Brian or
whoever else_over here has been the lead negotiator_with_GE in the past. I
would like_to_think that we could get it_clarified_now_that the larger
Enron is working_it.  Please try it again_if you can.








Scott Dieball
09/11/2000 07:29 PM

To:   Kay_Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:  _Brian D Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John
 ___  Schwartzenburg/ENRON