On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brad Passwaters wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:07:32 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox <steve@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote:
Hi James, i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period given.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Did you read the filings? This is not the customers position. Since I have only the customers filings and the judges TRO online it maybe that NAC has counter claims of their own. However
The customer's unhappy.. but I dont see anything bad going on here.. The customer's wording is sloppy for a legal doc and they have silly points raised, like because nac wont accept payment by credit card they are forced to pay off their outstanding balance hence having to pay twice (one to the card one to nac) .. well duh .. thats how it works. Non-portability of IP space is well known, sure, its hard work and I wouldnt wish to do it but its normal - right? Yeah theyre upset, this story has history that we're not seeing and I'm sure for that reason NAC are playing hard ball here. But I dont think wrt the question of leaving NAC and the timescales and cancellation process involved that anything illegal or unexpected is occuring.
in that case both parties would have put forth reasonable postions and the I believe the standard then would be that the judge would have to look at the harm done to both parties. In the case of the customer they present an at least passable case that this will cause them to be put out of business. Thus the judge says, Ok you keep paying NAC what you were paying them and NAC you work with them to transtion NAC can certainly challenge the TRO as indicated in the document itself
Presumably the judge is unsure and doing what seems to be a sensible option.. I hope the customer is using the time well to do some renumbering pdq!
This too isnt uncommon and the usual thing that occurs at this point is the customer negotiates with the supplier for an extension in service which they pay for.
And they claim they did but that NAC did not negotiate in good faith. Also that as NAC has indicated a desire to purchase them may have reason not to negotiate in good faith.
Maybe, happens.. again dont know the history, not sure its important.. Steve