my comments made below
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT on 03/15/2000 10:52 
AM ---------------------------


David Forster
03/14/2000 06:29 PM
To: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Please could you inform me of all the discussions we are having 
with companies on the ETA / PA changes

Mark,

Copy of language I suggested to Edmund to avoid reference to manifest error.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Dave
---------------------- Forwarded by David Forster/LON/ECT on 03/15/2000 12:23 
AM ---------------------------


David Forster
03/15/2000 12:28 AM
To: Edmund Cooper/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: Re: Please could you inform me of all the discussions we are having 
with companies on the ETA / PA changes  


Edmund,

How about this?

Please forward to me a copy of whatever you would like to send before you 
send it.

Thanks,

Dave


Further to the recent queries you raised concerning the ETA, we can provide 
you with the following comfort.  The final sentence of
 clause 2(d) prevents a Counterparty from claiming that the ETA has not been 
duly accepted or an offer has not been validly made
 or that a transaction has not been validly entered into solely by virtue of 
the electronic &click8 method of submitting offers or execution. 

This same principle provides protection to you in that the only binding 
transactions upon both yourselves and Enron are the ones in
 which certain terms have been clicked upon by you and the same terms 
accepted by Enron through the automated EnronOnline process.
 The system is designed to ensure that BOTH PARTIES ARE BOUND BY the terms of 
the offer you submit are the only terms 
which ARE can be accepted by Enron. As a result, there have been no instances 
in which a customer offered on one set of terms, but Enron
 accepted a different set of terms.