I know I said I was done talking about this issue but your latest post seems more genuine and so I will make a brief reply. First of all, GW proposed to you a good idea. Seek for some clarification from KRY. If you are really trying to get to the truth then get their side of the story also. I don't always agree with the spin I get from KRY but it gives me more information to form my own opinions. This issue has been raised in the past and that is why I tried to get some feedback from KRY.

As to Clause 19---my interpretation is as stated earlier---that Clause speaks about controversies that arise from the EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT. In other words, if you have a disagreement about the responsibilities and duties of the parties as set out in the contract then you go to VEN court. For example---Lets say the contract said that if KRY digs a 10 foot hole that the VENS would pay them $10. Let's say KRY dug the 10 foot hole and asked for payment. The VENS make payment of $10. KRY gets the $10 and calls up VEN and says----Hey, you paid me $10 US. That money is practically worthless. I want to get paid $10 Canadian. That is the type of controversey that arises from the EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT. Again, what is the duty and responsibility per the contract.

On the other hand let's say that VEN calls up KRY and says we just voided the contract. We can't point to any violation on your part of the contract---It's just that we are having a bad hair day and want to void the contract. I trust that the MOA doesn't mention anything about the VENs having the ability to void the contract if they are having a bad hair day. If that is the case, then such action is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of the contract and Clause 19 would not prevent KRY from seeking recourse outside of VEN.