De: Attorneys At Law [mailto:attorneysatlaw@adinet.com.uy]
Enviado el: martes, 21 de junio de 2005 14:50 Para: 'shao-shu.hung@mail.pwcglobal.com.tw' CC: 'CharlinChen@aiptek.com.tw'; 'Justin.Wang@mail.pwcglobal.com.tw'; 'Edward.Lin@mail.pwcglobal.com.tw';
'PeterChen@aiptek.com.tw'; 'TedTung@aiptek.com.tw'; 'JackyChen@aiptek.com.tw'; 'BenLee[李炳林]';
'etchegaray@adinet.com.uy'; 'bordabehere@adinet.com.uy' Asunto: RE: Claim of US$10,350 by Etchegaray Associate Consultants("EAC")
against Aiptek Importancia: Alta
Dear Mr. Shao-shu HUNG
PuHua & Associates
We thank you so much your email that we have received today.
Regrettably, Mr. Etchegaray is not available yet. He is recovering from a
surgery that he has suffered last June 13rd, 2005. Nevertheless it, this topic
has already been very discussed with the company EAC and its partners.
With all our respect, we think that your opinion has not considered all facts
neither the documents that we have evaluated, and of which it arises without any
doubt that EAC was deceived by Aiptek several times along the relationship.
Really, we have already expressed our legal arguments in our legal report to EAC,
a copy of the one, with all pleasure, we are attaching to you in this email
toward you, for the case that you had not had opportunity to read it.
The original situation is very clear, and it doesn't require more comments, the
documents are more than eloquent, for our eyes, and for those of any person that
loses some minutes in analyzing them in its together.
After EAC claims to Aiptek, and Aiptek recognizes its error and it develops a
negotiation, it is verified a new conflict situation and systematic
nonfulfillment.
Indeed, there was a moment when EAC and Aiptek (represented in the opportunity
by Honorable Mr. Ben Lee), they arrived to a principle of agreement. EAC fixed a
term of validity and maintenance of this pre-commitment, which was communicated
explicitly to Aiptek in having reiterated emails.
Once again, Aiptek neither answered neither it paid
inside the terms fixed by EAC.
Newly after out the term settled down by EAC, Aiptek answers, ignoring the term
fixed by EAC, and changing the conditions of the negotiation again outlined by
Aiptek itself.
Then Aiptek, only recognizes the part of the pre-agreement that he finds
beneficial (the figure of U$S 3.000 three thousand dollars U.S.A.), ignoring
those that are not it, as the term imposed by EAC to collect paid (that end
Friday May 13rd, 2005) and adding then the execution of new conditions on behalf
of EAC previous to the payment from Aiptek.
It is curious that until that moment, AIPTEK never before had at least
aforementioned any additional condition. However, it is more than undoubtedly
there was time more than enough before the term fixed by EAC expired, to
converse about this point.
In our opinion, this it is a new dilatory maneuver and also an unequivocal
sample of another unfair business practice from Aiptek that not even completes
the agreements that itself proposes.
This new nonfulfillment was of such a transcendency inside EAC that our form
just was consulted formally when EAC didn't receive answer to the birdcalls of
that payment.
Respectfully, and professionally speaking, we differ with your honorable
opinion, and we reject on behalf of EAC the offer for you carried out, the one
which at the present time doesn't cover neither the work originally realized for
EAC (Preliminary Business Plan), neither our honoraria, neither the time that
Etchegaray dedicated to solve frindly the situation, neither his accrued problem
of health, neither neither the works that at the present time one comes making
technically to advance on the topic, and that they wait the return to the work
of Mr. Etchegaray to be executed.
Respectfully once again, professionally speaking we think that there is a focus
error in this matter.
Here, it is not in discussion the existence of a formal
agreement.
In this matter they are in evidence the commercial behaviors and the deceit
mechanisms that Aiptek used to obtain a work of professional consultancy in
marketing for Latin America, that indeed was made as consequence of the
insistent petition from Aiptek, the one which also Aiptek is interested
evidently in using (if it is that it has no longer been part of the strategy and
marketing forecast 2005) and for the one which at the moment doesn't want to pay
the amount that EAC already takes amply invested in this painful matter.
In this matter it will discuss at all level, if the corporate commercial
behavior that Aiptek has had towards a potential partner and supplier like EAC,
to who made him develop a consultancy work with promises that Aiptek never
completed never, and who insulted after not responding him for 90 days, being
bothered when EAC asked for the results of the requested work, it is honorable
or nr.
In this matter, it will discuss, not only the form in that Aiptek induced EAC so
that it worked for Aiptek, but also the behavior not only of a person but
already at corporate level to manage this matter.
Finally, it will demonstrate that at least in this case, Aiptek doesn't complete
the agreements that it achieves, and it already renegotiates over it, taking
advantage of its comparative bigger size in front of a small company in Latin
America.
All these facts that we point out again, configure in International Commercial
Rights, in our humble professional opinion, unfair business practices.
We already express it in our legal report (attached again), and we reiterate now
that there are not doubts that AIPTEK has incurred in Unfair business practices
that in this particular case, they are not only condemned at international level
but rather they are also contemplated in several articles of the Unfair Trade
Law of R.O.C., that which increases more the crime.
Your intervention in this matter like attorney-at-laws of AIPTEK indicates that
this topic has already been treated corporately in the company, and that the
highest levels executives in the same one are perfectly informed of the
situation, as well as of our legal report.
According to that consulted with EAC, if at the moment it really exists interest
from AIPTEK of solving this topic and immediate and friendly form, AIPTEK should
observe and to complete the rules that were communicated them appropriately the
past and that at the moment they are:
1) Aiptek sends to EAC, the letter with the conditions that it wants that
EAC signs to authorize the intellectual use of the Preliminary Business Plan. If
this conditions are reasonable (the writing will be carried out by Aiptek) and
EAC accepts them, then you proceeds with the step 2.
2) Aiptek pays to EAC the sum of U$S 10.350,00 (ten a thousand three
hundred fifty dollars U.S.A.) by means of transfer of funds.
3) Once EAC has collected this money, EAC sends to AIPTEK the
conformity of the referred collection, and by Courier the letter in the terms
indicated in the point 1, properly signed.
4) When Aiptek receives the letter from EAC signed, and the copy of the
receipt of money, Aiptek sends by courier to EAC also, a letter thanking the
services rendered.
Estas condiciones son hasta el momento, las únicas que EAC acepta para alcanzar
un acuerdo amistoso entre las partes.
In reference to the reclaimed amount of U$S 10.350,00 (ten a thousand three
hundred fifty dollars U.S.A.), we should indicate that it is a figure that as
this matter advances and EAC should continue investing resources in the topic,
it will also continue being upgraded (increasing).
Thanking your communication, and with the hope that maybe you can understand our
optics in the topic and this way to achieve a quick friendly agreement between
the parts previous to the time that Mr. Etchegaray come back to the work and the
process continues as it was already established, I greets you with all our
consideration and recognition
Kind regards
Attorneys At Law
Dr. J.P.Bengoa
attorneysatlaw@adinet.com.uy
-----Mensaje original-----
De: shao-shu.hung@mail.pwcglobal.com.tw [mailto:shao-shu.hung@mail.pwcglobal.com.tw]
Enviado el: martes, 21 de junio de 2005 7:17
Para: attorneysatlaw@adinet.com.uy
CC: CharlinChen@aiptek.com.tw; Justin.Wang@mail.pwcglobal.com.tw; Edward.Lin@mail.pwcglobal.com.tw;
etchegaray@adinet.com.uy
Asunto: Claim of US$10,350 by Etchegaray Associate Consultants("EAC") against
Aiptek
Dear Mr. Pedro J. Etchegaray,
We, Puhua & Associates, act on behalf of AIPTEK for the captioned matter.
Regarding the EAC's claim of US$10,350 against Aiptek, please refer to our
letter dated June 21, 2005 as attached, which is self-explanatory. Should you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Shao-shu HUNG
PuHua & Associates 普華商務法律事務所
17F-3, No.295, Sec. 2, Kuang-Fu Rd., Hsin-Chu 300, Taiwan
新竹市300光復路二段295號17樓之3(帝國大樓)(新竹所)
TEL: 886-3-5752323
FAX: 886-3-5727978
_________________________
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Previous
Exit
Next
Download 75Kb 
