This Proposal We Cannot Accept Without Amending Clause Nine
Прочитайте цю статтю вголос
Увімкніть мікрофон і читайте у своєму темпі. Слова підсвічуються на ходу, і ніхто не зупиняє вас через одну помилку.
Ваш звук не потрапляє до MovaReader: розпізнає його ваш браузер. Політикою конфіденційності
Увійдіть, щоб ця сесія збереглася в історії читання.
This Proposal We Cannot Accept Without Amending Clause Nine
Subject: Revised licensing terms — third draft
Dear Helena,
Thank you for circulating the third draft overnight. This proposal we cannot accept without amending clause nine, and that amendment we request before any discussion of commercial timelines proceeds further.
What our client needs is territorial exclusivity defined by active distribution, not historical presence claimed in footnotes. What footnotes currently suggest is ambiguity our counsel cannot sign.
It was ambiguity that caused the previous partnership to collapse in 2019. It was 2019 counsel referenced when advising caution. Rarely have we seen language reuse problematic clauses verbatim; never have we agreed to such reuse here.
What we agree to in principle is co-marketing for selected catalogues. What we reject is unilateral assignment of translation rights bundled without separate consideration. This bundling we front as the core obstacle.
