Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00163-G|\/IS Document 171-3 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 3
Carol Houck — Volume 3
‘ Page 353 %
1 this letter is a precautionary letter. Correct? Q
2 A. It does say that.
3 Q. What does it mean to be a precautionary §
4 letter? i
3 A. Put on notice. E
6 Q. Put on notice of what? §
1 A. Put on notice that the ~~ that we have a 1
3 failure of a contractor to complete, continue the proiect 1
3 in accordance with the contract. _
12 Q. Okay. Is this letter, Federal 5, November 2i,E
11 2003, letter, is it a termination? Does it provide
U notice of termination of Durkin's right to complete the
13 construction contract? i
M A. it does not say the word termination. It 1
13 points to the fact that a meeting is required. That's g
16 required prior to termination. E
11 Q. It does? Where does it do that? g
13 A. Well, the meeting that shall take place. It g
13 doesn't say the word termination. g
22 Q. Does it say the meeting has to take place %
21 prior to termination? i
22 A. No, it doesn’t say that. §
23 Q. Okay. Weil, my question was, and I think it i
W could be fairly answered yes or no, is this letter a
Corbett & Wilcox
crarzmz-scss-4scs-aacs-¤z41abrzuzar

Case 1 :04-cv-00163-GIVIS Document 171 -3 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 3
Carol Houck — Volume 3
I Page 354
I formal termination of Durkin? g
2 A. This is not the formal termination or Durkin
8 letter, no, it is not. i
4 Q. Is this seven days' notice of termination or
8 Darkin? §
8 A. I believe that letter came later. §
7 Q. So this is not the seven—day notice letter to i
8 Durkin. Correct? g
9 A. I don't believe so. g _
18 Q. Okay. which letter is the seven—day notice or
22 termination letter to Durkin? g
22 A. Datewise, if you have it, I'll look at all the g
18 letters, but I know that —— I think they've been pointed é
12 out recently. 8
28 (Federal Deposition Exhibit No. 7 was
E8 marked for identification.) é
2-2 BY MR . KINGSLEY:
28 Q. Federal 7, ma'am, is a letter from Newark g
28 dated February 3rd, 2004. I'm just taking a guess, but I §
28 am assuming ~— let me just ask. Is this the letter you g
22 are thinking of when you point to a sevenmday notice of g
22 termination?
23 A. I believe so.
24 Q. And is this the only letter that gives Durkin E
Corbett & Wilcox
cfaf3412-9055-4fc5-8ac5-b3418bf202e?

Case 1 :04-cv-00163-GIVIS Document 171 -3 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 3 of 3
Carol Houck — Volume 3
i Page 355
1 seven days' notice of termination? §
2 A. There is a subsequent letter that adds
3 additional seven days' notice. I think it's a day later.?
4 Q. So, if I could just compare Federal 5, which g
5 is the November 22 letter, and Federal 7, which is the §
6 February 3rd letter, Federal Exhibit 5, the November 2l §
1 letter, is notice that Newark is considering declaring
8 Durkin to be in defauit, and it is also notice of actual g
2 default. And, on the other hand, the Federal Exhibit 7, g _
10 February 3rd letter, is the seven days' notice of
11 termination, according to you. Correct? é
12 A. Yes, pursuant to the terms of the contract. §
13 Q. Okay. if I could ask you to turn your ;
14 attention back to Federal Exhibit 4, the four steps. g
15 Federal Exhibit 5, the November 2i g
16 letter, wouid, according to you, satisfy step one, and
17 the Federal Exhibit 7, the February 3rd letter, would i
18 satisfy step four. ls that ~· g
19 A. Can you say it again? g
20 Q. Sure. Sure. §
21 The November 2l ietter goes to step one, g
22 and the February 3rd letter goes to step four?
22 A. Yeah, these letters coincide with l and 4.
21 Q. Okay. Let me ask you generally —— g
Corbett & Wilcox
ceaa.41z-scssarcs-aecs-bmamzum

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 171-3

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 171-3

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 171-3

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 3 of 3