Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scratchmyback who wrote (76809)	5/2/2008 8:56:43 AM
From: whisperer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197066

Well, what would be your conclusion on the fact that Qualcomm has returned all the checks to Nokia? Another one could argue that QCOM has in fact publicly admitted that Nokia does not need to pay anything! The only conclusion we can make is that the 20M falls short of NOK's obligation under the '01 SULA. Others have stated that the check came with strings attached. From my (perhaps simplistic) perspective, NOK has admitted it owes QCOM something, whereas QCOM has "admitted" that 20M is not enough. According to the above argument, I can walk into my favorite electronics store, pick up a laptop and put down 20 bucks on the counter at the check out. When the cashier kindly gives me back my 20 bucks and tells me the price for the laptop is 2 grand, I can claim the laptop for free.<g> -W

To: scratchmyback who wrote (76809)	5/2/2008 11:44:24 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197066

I'm sorry, but your conclusion is silly and meritless and I will assume you meant it to be flippant. But, not to have some board members mislead I will respond seriously. There were several pages of conditions to acceptance of the $20 million check, according to Qcom. "Tender" of payment must be non-conditional to be lawful. Nokia attempted to forge a new or modified contract. Normally, if one places a condition with a check (e.g., in full and final settlement of all amounts due on account--in full and final settlement of all claims and causes of action arising out of a traffic accident on such and such date) and the creditor accepts the check, then an accord and satisfaction takes place, that is, a contract ensues to accept only that amount in satisfaction of the debt. If you've ever received from an insurance company a check to reimburse you for damages from an auto accident you will recall a similar statement on the reverse side of the check where you endorse it. Qcom's rejection cannot be interpreted as an acknowledgement that nothing is due, as a matter of law. BTW, it doesn't matter that there is no debt due if there is a dispute. Qcom had no choice but to reject the payment. Indeed, there are rules that the rejection and return of the check has to be immediate or within a reasonable period of time to avoid acceptance.