Found an error in my analysis. Regarding the non-delivery of the 1,250 digEplayers found in their First Claim, digEcor finally acknowledges delivery during the week of 30 Oct 2006 and that digEcor is now seeking only $94,846 which is the cost of 26 units that were defective and the missing 1,250 batteries. This acknowledgment is found in Doc 65, page 3, para 2. The Court granted this judgment for digEcor. There is no mention of the 750 unit follow-on order and I’m not sure if digEcor ever paid for them. Still looking for a reference on that one.

In digEcor’s amended complaint (Doc 84, page 11, para 47), digEcor maintained their partial claim that EDIG breached their contract by not delivering the 1,250 units on the due date even though they acknowledged eventual delivery. They are not seeking the $793,750 anymore but are seeking consequential damages in the amount of no less than $1,000,000. Will be determined at trial.

-----------------

Found another error. Regarding digEcor’s Second Claim of unjust enrichment in the amount of $793,750 found in their amended complaint Doc 84, Pg 12. digEcor acknowledges their Second Claim has been dismissed by the Court on 19 Jan 2007 so this claim is no longer active.