SILVER, Thanks and part agree. as you notice in entire dockets that has been
so far filed e.DIGITAL always claim to this theory that failure of digEplayer delivery
was based on third party (MAYCOM) breach of contracts and this was
unintentional mishap . by the way they (DIGECOR) as you mentioned they never
paid for this delivery to begin with . I am not sure even batteries are part of this
contract or not. Eitherway if the judgement for damages decided $25,000 or
25-80,000 dollars still it is far cry from 8-10 million dollars that DIGECOR is
seeking after.
In following press release also there is mention of $25,000 ceiling damages
Court denies digEcor's motion for judgment on e.Digital's two affirmative counterclaims - quick facts
4/6/2009 1:21 PM ET
(RTTNews) - e.Digital Corp. (EDIG.OB: News ) said that the Court denied digEcor Inc.'s motion for judgment on e.Digital's two affirmative counterclaims.
As a result of this ruling, e.Digital said it maintains its claims against digEcor for defamation and tortious interference with economic relations, and will attempt to prove these claims at trial. The Court also denied all of digEcor's motions to strike various e.Digital declarations and submissions.
On April 2, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a ruling on most of the remaining issues in the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment pending in the lawsuit brought by digEcor against e.Digital.
The Court first denied digEcor's motion for judgment on its claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, ruling that "as a matter of law e.Digital had no implied duty to refrain from competing with digEcor while the digEplayer 5500s were not yet delivered.
The Court then ruled on e.Digital's motion for summary judgment to dismiss digEcor's three claims for unfair competition. The Court denied the motion as to two of those claims, but granted it on one, dismissing digEcor's claim for unfair competition under a Utah State law.The Court is still considering the question of whether digEcor's alleged damages in its claim for breach of the Digital Rights Management Agreement between the parties are prohibited, or are limited to $25,000, under a remedy limitation provision in that agreement. The Court has requested additional briefing on that issue. The case is scheduled for trial beginning May 4 on all remaining issues.
