|
|
|
Episode # 08 - Second abuse - Emails # 36 - 41
Suddenly, the following date of having announced that he
would take a long time minimum 14 days to respond and to analyze the situation,
Mr. Ben Lee, the spokesman of Mr. Peter Chen, sends an email requesting a
discount in the reclaimed honoraria, making a counteroffer of U$S 2.000,00 (two
thousand dollars U.S.A.) for the birdcall of Mr. Etchegaray (that was of U$S
3.500) or offering the payment of U$S 3.500 (the entirety of that claimed) if
Mr. Etchegaray added certain information that AIPTEK needed.
Amazingly, the information requested in complementary form by AIPTEK, it was the
one that would be obtained of the implementation of the Step 1 of the
Preliminary Business Plan risen by Mr.Etchegaray, and whose development cost had
already been quoted in that document by the sum of U$S 12.000 (twelve thousand
dollars).
However, it is important to highlight that this answer on the part of Mr. Ben
Lee, constitutes the first absolute recognition that AIPTEK had wanted to
swindle Mr. Etchegaray through Mr. Vincent Luo, as well as that AIPTEK needed
the requested advice absolutely, and finally it configures a second swindle
intent now, when trying to deceive Mr. Etchegaray again, offering U$S 1.500
additional for the information that AIPTEK already knew that it would cost U$S
2.000 (twelve thousand dollars U.S.A.) to obtain.
Mr. Etchegaray doesn't only reject the proposal, but rather he considers it a
new intent of abuse on the part of AIPTEK and he makes to know it this way to
Mr. Ben Lee in an extensive and well argued email.
Nevertheless that happened, and in a new intent to reach a friendly agreement
and being based on the again reiterated interest from AIPTEK to obtain the
advice for the development of market of Mr. Etchegaray, he offers a second
opportunity to solve the problem, suggesting that it is taken ahead the
execution of the proposed Preliminary Business, at least in their first stage,
in way that AIPTEK doesn't have to invest money in repairing damage (U$S 3.500),
but in market development (U$S 12.000).
|
|
|
36
Up |
Date : |
April
19th, 2005 - H2303 |
71Kb |
Click to read the content deeply |
|
From : |
BenLee@aiptek.com.tw |
|
To : |
etchegaray@adinet.com.uy |
|
Subject
: |
RE: Please, confirm me if you have
received mi email dated April 13rd, 2005 |
|
Content
:
|
Answer and First offer of U$S 2000 against
U$S 3500 claimed. |
|
Comments : |
This is the first
time in this whole history, where finally a high executive of
AIPTEK (Taiwan) responds the birdcalls made by Mr. Etchegaray (ECA -
Uruguay), and also recognizes the "unfair
business practice" that AIPTEK has taken ahead in damage of
Mr. Etchegaray (ECA - Uruguay).
Even here, begins to be perceived another
common behavior to all high executives of AIPTEK that go involving in
this matter. Mr. Ben Lee (from AIPTEK),
taking advantage of their privileged position (they already have the
Preliminary Business Plan that ECA - Uruguay sent them, without
having paid a cent of dollar up to now) makes counteroffer that is
smaller than the original amount claimed by Mr. Etchegaray; offering to
pay that originally claimed only if they obtain more additional
marketing information.
This situation configures practically, a fault confession for "unfair
business practices from AIPTEK toward Mr. Etchegaray (ECA - Uruguay).
It is also clear and it is reiterated here, the interest and the
necessity that AIPTEK had and it
maintains, in getting marketing information and
consultancy services to develop the market of Latin America.
Lastly, observe you that Mr. Ben Lee had announced however in his
previous email that would delay up to 14 days in responding, however,
practically one day later they were already sending the answer with a
counteroffer.
This is without a doubt the best evidence that demonstrates an abusive
behavior at corporate level, and it ratifies as valid the use of unfair
business practice to achieve the objective.
|
|
|
|
37
Up |
Date : |
April 20th, 2005 - H2153 |
101Kb |
Click to read
the content deeply |
|
From : |
etchegaray@adinet.com.uy |
|
To : |
BenLee@aiptek.com.tw |
|
Subject
: |
Answer to your proposal dated April 19th, 2005 |
|
Content
:
|
A complete and detailed rejection to the
counteroffer sent by Mr. Ben Lee (AIPTEK - Taiwan). nevertheless, and as
new sample of good will from Mr. Etchegaray (ECA - Uruguay), the initial
concepts that they motivated the development of the Preliminary Business
Plan are reiterated, and he offers other friendly alternatives to solve
the problem, where the execution of the proposed works is included. |
|
Attachments :
|
|
|
Comments : |
In these instances, Mr. Etchegaray (ECA -
Uruguay) he still believed (in form something frank) that the whole
situation had not been caused in intentional form by AIPTEK, but rather
it was only a not well conversant one.
For that reason and thinking that Mr. Ben Lee (AIPTEK - Taiwan) had not
been able to read the whole material and to understand the graveness of
the matter, Mr. Etchegaray (ECA - Uruguay) insists on solving the topic
in positive and constructive way.
Regrettably becoming of the events will settle down clearly and
unfounded to any doubt, the reiterated abusive attitude from AIPTEK
against Mr. Etchegaray (ECA - Uruguay).
Mr. Ben Lee, as previously Mr. Vincent Luo and
Mr. Peter Chen, the AIPTEK's CEA, he neither never answered this first
email. |
|
|
|
38
Up |
Date : |
April 22nd, 2005 - H1119 |
104Kb |
Click to read
the content deeply |
|
From : |
etchegaray@adinet.com.uy |
|
To : |
BenLee@aiptek.com.tw |
|
Subject
: |
RV: Answer to your proposal dated
April 19th, 2005 |
|
Content
:
|
Again, and as usual with AIPTEK, as Mr.
Etchegaray (ECA - Uruguay) he didn't receive confirmation that the
previous email arrived to Mr. Ben Lee (AIPTEK - Taiwan), Mr. Etchegaray
again reiterates it for the first time (First
reiteration), requesting that please they simply inform him
that they have received the message. |
|
Attachments :
|
|
|
Comments : |
Mr. Ben Lee, as
previously Mr. Vincent Luo and Mr. Peter Chen, the AIPTEK's CEO, he
neither never answered this second email (First reiteration).
|
|
|
|
39
Up |
Date : |
April 27th, 2005 - H1955 |
131Kb |
Click to read
the content deeply |
|
From : |
etchegaray@adinet.com.uy |
|
To : |
BenLee@aiptek.com.tw |
|
Subject
: |
RV: Answer to your proposal dated
April 19th, 2005 - Second confirmation request |
|
Content
:
|
Again, and as usual with AIPTEK, as Mr.
Etchegaray (ECA - Uruguay) he didn't receive confirmation that the
previous email arrived to Mr. Ben Lee (AIPTEK - Taiwan), Mr. Etchegaray
again reiterates it for the first time (Second
reiteration), requesting that please they simply inform him
that they have received the message. |
|
Attachments :
|
|
|
Comments : |
It was neccesary a
Second reiteration to obtain an answer from Mr. Ben Lee.
This, has been a common behavior from High Executives from AIPTEK in
this history. |
|
|
|
40
Up |
Date : |
April
27th, 2005 - H2213 |
155Kb |
Click to read
the content deeply |
|
From : |
BenLee@aiptek.com.tw |
|
To : |
etchegaray@adinet.com.uy |
|
Subject
: |
RE: Answer to your proposal dated April
19th 2005 - Second confirmation request |
|
Content
:
|
QUOTE:
Dear Mr. Etchegaray
I confirmed the reception of your mail. Sorry as
I was out for a couple of days for trip and I am back to the office. A
response will be made to you shortly.
Ben Lee
UNQUOTE.
|
|
Comments : |
|
|
|
|
41
Up |
Date : |
April 27th, 2005 - H2304 |
154Kb |
Click to read
the content deeply |
|
From : |
etchegaray@adinet.com.uy |
|
To : |
BenLee@aiptek.com.tw |
|
Subject
: |
RE: Answer to your proposal dated
April 19th 2005 - Second confirmation request |
|
Content
:
|
QUOTE:
Thanks a lot Mr. Ben Lee for your quick reply.
Now, I wait your definitively answer to decide how we continue with this
matter or if we reach a friendly agreement with AIPTEK.
Kind regards
Etchegaray Consultants & Associates
UNQUOTE. |
|
Comments : |
|
|
|
|
H o m e
