Interad gratefully acknowledges Amazing's challenge to have its and its customers servers examined by an independent expert, at its cost, to determine if it has used any of Interad's software.

Unfortunately, the offer comes with unacceptable strings attached - strings that suggest Interad should ignore the other critical issues in dispute.

Interad wants the breach of contract and misrepresentaion questions examined by an independent arbitrator in a forum to which it has fair and equitable access - without the massive disadvantage imposed on it by court action against a multi-million dollar corporation.

Simon Arkell still claims Amazing acted within its rights.  Interad wants that claim fairly tested.

In his latest email to Lorraine Cobcroft, he makes this claim in relation to the cancellation of the agreement between Amazing and Interad:

You just can't accept that Garrick could not get us any software that was integrated or marketable,

Firstly, there has never been any evidence presented to Interad that Garrick couldn't deliver integrated or marketable software.  Indeed, Interad was not even informed of that claim until it was found in a court brief related to an action against Lorraine Cobcroft personally, a full six months after Amazing sued Interad alleging "breach of contract" without identifying any grounds for its claim.

In fact, Amazing admitted on a web site it published that it never tried to integrate the software. We note that admission was hastily removed after someone realised the writer had a bad case of "foot in mouth disease", but the admission was noted.

More importantly, however, Interad has no responsibility for the outcome of an integration project Amazing sought to carry out in its own business AFTER acquisition, nor for Garrick's performance as an Amazing Australia employee, restricted and governed by their infrastructure, facilities, support network, and management systems.

And finally, Arkell accepted the integration risk in writing on behalf of Amazing before the contract was signed. Nothing in the contract entitled Amazing to overturn the Agreement to Interad's disadvantage if it couldn't deliver as it represented.

"nor can you accept that the deal didn't go through because of the statements you had made to the government bodies." continues Arkell.

What on earth does he mean by that?  Interad rightly and properly informed the Queensland branch of the Australian Technology Showcase that a deal had been done.  There was a contract signed.  Amazing claimed a deal was in place. Amazing was announcing the deal. 

"Do you remember asking me to get a press release out stating that we had bought the Interad software and name the company because it would help you with them? I have that email. Prior to that all we did was state that an LOI was signed with an unnamed company."

Was there some unstated reason for wanting to keep Interad's name secret?  In any case, Amazing stated an LOI was signed with an unnamed company BEFORE the contact was signed - when there was only an LOI.  "That email" will show that Interad's statements to Government bodies were AFTER the definitive agreement was executed. 

Where in the contract is there any clause that gave Amazing a right to cancel a contract because Interad made truthful statements to a Government body in Australia about the fact that the contract existed?  There was never any request that we remain silent about the deal.

"I am telling you yet again that we don't have your software, never did"

Then how on earth did you conclude that it wasn't marketable, or wasn't integratable?

How did Hall conclude that it was a "mish mash of Microsoft".  Obviously he never saw that it was written in Java on a Linux platform - or perhaps he is just so ignorant of technology that he doesn't know Microsoft doesn't use those technologies in its commercial products? 

And how did Hall conclude that it was "phantom" software without ever having it? I think the many customers who have happily paid to use it for years would be insulted by the suggestion that they were paying for "phantom" software, and I'm sure the Australian Technology Showcase would aggressively defend its badging process and its decision to use the software that impressed it so much when examined for badging that they just had to sign on as customers!

Of course Amazing's resellers rejected the technology, didn't they?  In a demonstration of software Amazing apparently never had to demonstrate.  But then Amazing did confess that they showed THEIR technology but "positioned it as Interad's".

I have told you repeatedly and will tell you again that all we did was cancel an agreement whereby Amazing would license your software if it proved to be marketable.

Where in the Agreement does it say Amazing's payment of shares was conditional upon the integration work they planned to do AFTER acquisition producing marketable product?  Amazing has never made an attempt to substantiate any allegation of fault with the software Interad delivered. It has merely claimed that its own organization failed to deliver, and on that basis it seeks to impose massive loss on Interad.

The fact is, an it's provable, that Amazing Australia had no hardware for the integration project, never drew a specification fo it, and neither had nor had the ability to obtain the JD Edwards software Interad's software was to be integrated with.  They had no expertise in JD Edwards, no ability to install it, and no access to technical support for the product.  And they assigned Garrick to unrelated work servicing their mobility and wrireless network clients all over Australia, while apparently expecting him to produce a Genie who could integrate their non-existent software (a huge and complex and quite dated ERP system that was not particularly well suited for operation over the web) to Interad's web software in a matter of a few days - without either the software to be integrated or the hardware to run it on!

And then Hall goes on to say Amazing Australia is not involved in the affair - after claiming their failure to integrate the software gave Amazing the right to overturn the Agreement!  (Garrick was an Amazing Aust. employee and,as such, limited by their facilities and management - and clearly any claimed failure involving an employee is, in commercial terms, a failure of the employer.  The employer must accept responsibility for employee selection and management).

Hall's claim that Garrick sat at home working from his laptop for 5 months is provably untrue from Amazing Australia's own time sheets and payment records - but it's obvious there is a commication breakdown between Hall and the rest of Amazing's people, because he habitually contradicts them.

"I will also tell you for the fiftieth time that the software installed at United Lifestyle Group and every other Clear Enterprise installation is our software. Garrick will probably have to admit that he knows we developed Flash based ecommerce years before meeting you that only integrates to Clear Enterprise."

Garrick will make no such admission, because Lorraine and Garrick were both present at a meeting at which Warwick Prince of Amazing Australia claimed the reason Amazing wanted to do business with Interad was that Amazing had no ecommerce software, and desperately needed a solution.

Further, this is the second time Interad has been told that the software installed at United Lifestyle Group was not theirs, and Clear Enterprise integration has been mentioned just once before, less than a week before this email.

But then again you are so hell bent on proving everyone wrong and yourself right (as you did with Telstra and others) that it doesn't even matter to you at this stage.

Now what has Telstra got to do with any of this?  And what others?  Interad had a dispute with Telstra, as have thousands of other Australian businessess.  Half of Australia would probably agree with most of the sentiments Lorraine Cobcroft expressed during that dispute.  In the end, Tesltra admitted service failures and agreed to a settlement, the terms of which are confidential. It was a perfectly legal, honest, legitimate business deal.  Interad defended its rights as a customer to demand the service it paid for, and ultimately Telstra recognised those rights - as it should.  There have been other occasions where Lorraine Cobcroft defended Interad's rights - as was her duty as the CEO of a public company. She had an obligation to protect the shareholders to the greatest extent possible from loss caused by service failures, or non-performance of contractual obligations. That she did so quite aggressively when necessarily should invite praise, not condemnation.

"I have told you repeatedly and will tell you again that all we did was cancel an agreement whereby Amazing would license your software if it proved to be marketable."

Where in the Contract does it say that Amazing agreed to license Interad's software if it proved marketable.  The contract Simon Arkell signed on behalf of Amazing (there was never any contract signed by Semisoft, as claimed by Hall!) was a contract of sale under which Amazing agreed to BUY Interad's software.

Nothing in either prior negotiations or the contract itself made Interad responsible for the results of Amazing's attempts to produce other software using the technology after acquisition.  In fact, Arkell wrote to Interad specifically accepting, on behalf of Amazing, all the risks of integration.  The only risk Interad accepted was the risk of reduced or no royalties if Amazing, despite performing its obligations under the Agreement (which it now admits it did not even attempt) failed to achieve significant sales revenue.

In any case, Simon, that is far from "all you did".  What you did was to cancel an agreement without proper process and substantiation, then very agressively refuse even minimal discussion or explanation with a letter from Hall threatening Interad that its officers would "lose their houses and other assets" if they made any attempt to protect their rights. Then Amazing took court action in California, openly stating it did so to impose intolerable costs on Interad that would compromise its ability to defend its rights.

I am personally sick of your incessant nagging over an issue that you are wrong about and I am sure that your 'board' will outright reject an offer whereby we would pay for a third party to look at the code in any of our customers or on our servers. If in fact I am right (which I am!) you would look like the complete fool you are being.

What an astonishing statement from the President of a "multimillion dollar multi-national public company".  Especially with court action afoot!   Is it that you are sick of seeing the court submissions that present evidence of truth - and you fear the final outcome?

"Additionally, I am now telling you that I will sue you personally in Australia if you make one more comment about my personal morality or ethics. It is flawless in my career to date and to paint me in the way you have will cost you financially. As an Australian Commonwealth Games gold medalist, Australian Champion and record holder, and dual Olympian for Australia with success in business as well I am sure that the scales will be outweighed and I dare you to lie about me again.

Please identify any lie you claim has been told about you Simon.  We defy you to evidence a single comment about your personal morality or ethics - let alone one that can be proved untrue. 

Conversely, you have emailed Lorraine Cobcroft admitting openly to being a party to the publication of a disgusting web site that openly and blatantly defames both her and her family referring to personal family history with gross lies, and even characterising Lorraine as an ugly, mad woman by publishing a photograph (now removed, we note, but we "whacked" the site and there are several witnesses to its publication).

I would suggest that your "morality and ethics" are on display both in your remarks about the Cobcrofts and Interad on that grotty web site, and in your response to Interad's requests for fair dispute resolution.  The public will judge for themselves, without any help from Interad or Lorraine Cobcroft. 

Any further law suit will be aggressively defended and a counter suit launched, and you can be absolutely assured you will lose on both. In a court it's about evidence - and try as you may you cannot stop the evidence being revealed now that you have made it available.

I have stated truthful facts objectively, and invited intelligent response.  You have not countered a single statement nor answered a single question.  Rather, you have personally defamed with irrelevant and untrue claims about individuals private lives and completely unrelated affairs.

"Don't bother responding to me until you can tell me that you will drop this stupidity upon 'clearance' by a third party software expert. If and when that happens we will drop our lawsuit and stop the process of filing in other jurisdictions."

Drop this stupidity?  What "stupidity" is that Simon.  Amazing sued Interad and Lorraine, remember?  Lorraine might now be able to withdraw from further efforts to defend, as the action against her has been dismissed for want of proper jurisdiction. 

Interad cannot stop anything!  It has been forced to defend its rights against Amazing's accusations - and despite the horrific disadvantage deliberately and maliciously imposed by Amazing (why would it do that if it was confident it was in the right?), Interad has to do the best it can to protect its reputation and its future business opportunities.

Amazing fired the first bullet.  All Interad has done is defend itself. And until Amazing allow fair and honest resolution of the dispute, that defence must continue.

So here is Interad's proposal for "stopping the stupidity".  Agree to submit the dispute to independent low cost arbitration in a forum to which Interad has fair an equitable access and to abide by the decision of the arbitrator.

To the extent that Amazing can demonstrate that any statement made by Interad or any associated party is unfair or incorrect, Interad will retract and apologise.  Will Amazing show the same courtesy?