Opinion ID: 2469348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: February 2009 Communications

Text: Four days later, on February 2, 2009, Old Navy responded to L-7's January 29th email, advising L-7 that despite our best efforts to negotiate an agreement that would be reasonable and mutually acceptable, we have not reached and will not be able to reach common ground on key business terms, reiterating that minimum guaranteed payments were inconsistent with our business plans and practices. Id. Vayness (L-7) responded the same day, explaining his surprise at Old Navy's email given that the January 29, 2009 call was completely amicable, polite, professional, and [ ] friendly and that none of the points discussed during that call was left off as a deal breaker. Id. The email went on to list items as to which L-7 contended there was agreement (number of stores, products, timeline and term, marketing, royalty rate, and territory); items that it was now prepared to accept, including no minimum guaranteed royalties; two points that needed clarification (personnel and development budget); and one issue to be agreed to, namely ownership of designs. [7] Id. On February 6, 2009, Old Navy advised L-7 that material open issues remained, and that, in light of the nature of the negotiations, Old Navy did not believe that a collaborative partnership could be established. Compl. ¶ 62.