Opinion ID: 168106
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: M ediaCom Sale

Text: From the outset, however, the course of performance was troubled. The first problem involved a sale of fiberoptic cable to a company called M ediaCom. In M ay 2001, Richmond went to New York to sell fiberoptic cable. Eager to make a sale, Richmond called Burrows to make sure they would be able to ship the goods. Based on Burrows’s affirmative reply, Richmond completed the sale. Subsequently, Burrows told Richmond that CATV was entitled only to the difference betw een the selling price of the cable and Arguss’s purchase price. A t the time, cable had been in demand and was selling for 130–150% of its original -6- value, so if CATV sold it at that rate, it could remit 100% of the original value to Arguss and still take its standard commission. Unfortunately, before Arguss made this demand, Richmond had already agreed to sell the cable for less than the premium price. Because he had already promised the cable to M ediaC om, Richmond was forced to ship the equipment to protect his credibility, and to do this, he had to promise to pay Arguss full value, rather than its usual 70% .