[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: [OT] Working Lunch
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [OT] Working Lunch
- From: "Mark Hetherington" <mark.egroups@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 22:07:45 -0000
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Update for those interested at:
http://www.dp-now.co.uk/news/Jan2002/dpnnews137/dpnnews137.html
One of the more pertinent points is:
"After pondering the evidence for 24 hours, Sutton Trading Standards
officer, Tony Northcott admitted to us this afternoon that his team would
not be recommending enquirers to take legal action against Kodak."
Mark.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Watt [mailto:kennwatt@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 January 2002 12:49
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] [OT] Working Lunch
Just watched the show and the piece about Kodak, it seems that confusion
reigns supreme and the eventual outcome of this is very unclear. Different
lawyers with different views etc. and WL’s interpretation seems to be the
same as mine and a lot of other people in that the confirmation e-mail *is*
a contract.
Mark H., good luck ;-)
K.
This is K. From Work! I really should be working ;-)
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|