That works to make it more bilateral.  I think we still have the fundamental 
problem that it is a basically flawed concept.  But that's not going to be 
fixed by drafting.



	David Forster@ENRON
	08/21/2000 06:48 PM
		
		 To: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Gross Error language

I think we need for this to be reciprocal -although I agree the errors are 
likely to be only our own.

Therefore, I suggest the following:

(f) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, any master agreement or 
any GTC to the contrary, any Transaction resulting from a Gross Error may  be 
voided and the parties agree that any such voided Transaction shall be of no 
force or effect.  &Gross Error8 shall mean the posting of any price that is 
[5]% or more above or below then prevailing market prices, which difference 
is verified by the average of quotations from three or more participants in 
the relevant market for Transactions which would be conducted at the time of 
the Transaction containing the Gross Error. For a Transaction to qualify as 
subject to Gross Error, one party must communicate by facsimile to the other 
the claimed existence of Gross Error within [3] hours of the Transaction 
occurring. 


What do you think?

Dave




From: Mark Taylor@ECT on 08/14/2000 05:27 PM
To: David Forster/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: Gross Error language

(f) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, any master agreement or 
any GTC to the contrary, any Transaction resulting from a Gross Error by 
Enron shall be voided at Enron,s election and Counterparty agrees that any 
such voided Transaction shall be of no force or effect.  &Gross Error8 shall 
mean the posting of any price that is [30]% or more above or below then 
prevailing market prices, which difference is verified by the average of 
quotations from three or more participants in the relevant market.