Globe latter dated 6 June 2019

1. As correctly observed, the recipient’s company in the letter is different from Eijyu
in the recipient address in the beginning portion of the letter.
2. It did not spell out what the acronym MRC and OTC in the table before the Notes
portion.
3. It did not spell out what the acronym CEF and MDF stands for in No. 8 of the Notes
portion.
4. Note 9 states that “this offer is valid for thirty (30) days from the date of this
proposal.”

30th day from 6 June 2019 is 6 July 2019. Mr. Haraguchi signed the letter on 16 July
2019. If 30 days reckoned from receipt – 30th day would be 15 August 2019.

Terms and Conditions (Annex “B”)

a. The meaning of the MRF acronym in Clause 4 was not spelled out. MRF likewise
mentioned in Clause 9(e).
b. Clause 9(b) on Payment terms - suggest that the phrase “such demand hereby
expressly waived by Customer” be deleted.
c. Clause 9(e) provides for a “penalty interest on the overdue amount at the rate of
1.5% per month from date due until the same is fully paid.”

Penalty interest would then be 18% per annum. This could be negotiated to take into
consideration the following cases decided by Supreme Court:

Supreme Court case Company charges Adjustments made by

Supreme Court
Interest rate – 24% per Interest rate – 12% per
MCMP Construction Corp. annum annum
vs. Monark Equipment Penalty and collection Penalty and collection
Corp, G.R. No. 201001, charge – 3% per month or charge – 6% per annum
November 10, 2014 36% per annum
 Interest rate – 26% per Interest rate – 2% per
Marquez vs. Elisan Credit annum annum
Corporation, G.R. No. Penalty charge – 10% per Penalty charge – 2% per
194642, April 6, 2015 month, 120% per annum annum

d. Clause 10 [Disputed Billings] provides that Complaints on the billings shall not be
filed later than due date.

It is suggested that the provision be rephrased “Complaints shall not be filed later than
the due date of the billing or under any circumstance not to be less than least ten (10)
working days from receipt of the billing/Statement of Account by the Customer.”

e. Clause 16 [Cancellation of Order] is silent in instances when the order is cancelled

even though a signed proposal has already been sent (prior to turn over of the Service)
– and no installation activities have been undertaken yet.

In the above situation since no installation activities have been undertaken and no costs
have been incurred, then no installation fee should be charged.

f. Clause 22 [Limitation of Liabilities] particularly paragraph (b) where it states that

“whether that liability arises in contract, tort, strict liability, breach of warranty, or
otherwise.”

It is suggested that this phrase be deleted.

Generally, the Proposal is in order subject to the above comments and observations.