My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL40608
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL40608
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:59:46 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:46:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/7/1994
From
CORLEY CO
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ <br />The Corley Company <br />Phone 6325050 P.O. Bor 1821 <br />COLORADO SPRINGS. COLD RADO 80901 <br />December 6, 1994 <br />Mr. Larry P. Routten <br />Division of Minerals & Geology <br />1313 Sherman St. <br />Denver CO 80203 <br />Dear Mr. Routten: <br />~~ <br />R~(`F~~ ~rC <br />°~~/so O£C ~ ~ 1984 <br />nOr ^'~me~a~s ~ ~'eo%9Y <br />We have just received your letter dated Nov. 3, 1994, in which you returned <br />to us a signed copy of the Addendum to Agreement Concerning Diversion of <br />Water into Magpie Creek. <br />We completely reject your last sentenance of paragraph two in which you state <br />"Obviously the final determination of the scope of work must be made by the <br />Division in its contract with the party doing the reclamation". That is <br />entirely contrary to our intent and entirely contrary to the wording of the <br />signed contract. The contract states clearly that the scope of the work will <br />be determined by Corley, and it does not provide for the Division to make the <br />final determination. <br />In our telephone conversation Nov. 28, 1994, I thought that you agreed that <br />we would have the final determination, and I agreed that the Division would <br />be the contracting party only. <br />If you continue to insist that the Division has the final determination of <br />the scope of the work, then there has not been a meeting of the minds and the <br />above mentioned contract is void. <br />Sincerely, <br />~l/ <br />W.D. Corley, Jr <br />President <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.