digEcor’s Sixth Defense [pg. 9 of 16] argues that EDIG’s breach of Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith claim should be denied because “…the relevant provision of the 2002 Agreement is not legally enforceable.” <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

digEcor’s Eighth Defense argues EDIG’s breach of Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith claim should be denied because “…the relevant provision of the 2002 Agreement is not sufficiently definite to be enforceable under common law…”  

Gee, I wonder what else might not be legally enforceable with the 2002 Agreement.  How about the 2002 NDA…anything “not sufficiently definite” there?  Anything unclear or any part that may have two or more plausible meanings?  Remember, the Court has already said if the language within the four corners of a contract is ambiguous, it cannot rule as a matter of law. 

Hey digEcor, be careful what you ask for lest you get it in spades.