A further thought that popped is that, IMO, in a situation where digEcor did indeed make a payment directly to Maycom, then digEcor probably was a direct party in the contract with Maycom. It would just be very unusual for a contract to enable EDIG to obligate a third party (digEcor) in the direct payment schedule to the supplier (Maycom). I actually doubt it could be done and, if done, that Maycom would accept the contract without the signature of digEcor to acknowledge their obligation/commitment to pay.

This suggests that digEcor, being a direct party to the contract, could not sue EDIG for Maycom`s failure to deliver. It would be much more likely that digEcor and EDIG would together go after Maycom or that digEcor (the suffering party) would go after Maycom directly/independently (sans EDIG, which was not injured by Maycom).

These thoughts add credence to my ``PS`` in my last message. Potential impact to EDIG IMO would be limited to a portion of their fee for manufacturing oversight (~$100K?, or 1M shares of added float, adding ~.33% to float - trivia).

But I KNOW nuttin`!

SGE

PS: I may be all wet in this discussion, but it sure beats people bashing! LOL