Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TerrysSPF
...
I'm still not clear on the Jan 1996 date. Is Shelby asking for ALL documentation collected by SAAC from that date on - even concerning older vehicles (built pre 96) and information collected concerning original cars? -Or do they just want info collected on "newer" vehicles built from 1996 on?
No matter WHICH scenerio is correct, I don't understand why you would want to seperate this information in two parts, between two different books, and between two different companies. 
... |
Since January 1996 is mentioned multiple times, perhaps that was the start of a new licensing contract between Shelby and SAAC. And that is the contract that has been in place since that time. The 1996 time frame probably coincides with SAI starting to build cars again, which could have been a major change for both SAAC and SAI in terms of their relationship. I'm pretty sure at some point in the distant past SAAC was Shelby licensing. Perhaps 1996 was the point where licensing shifted from SAAC to Shelby Licensing as SAI started up the business in Vegas.
My interpretation of the registry information was that they want all information collected since 1996, not on cars built since that date.
I'm not sure what the point of asking for financial records since 1996 is. If as Amy says, Shelby just wants to move on, why would they care about the financial records? The only thing that might make sense is if SAAC was to pay a percentage of something as part of their license. But if that was the case, you would think SAAC had to pay that on a regular basis, not in a lump sum after more than a decade.
To me, it just seems like the Shelby lawyers are out to do as much damage as they can.