Rejection of Third Addendum termination terms
Company: Applied Digital
The claim, verbatim
Applied Digital did not accept or execute the Third Addendum dated July 29, 2024, asserting that the parties failed to accurately memorialize the offer regarding early termination of the GPU lease.
Source (primary)
Character Technologies, Inc. v. Applied Digital Corporation — Entry #32: OPINION AND ORDER: Applied Digital's Partial Motion to Dismiss in Character Tech., Court No (RECAP, court_filing)
View cached copy (2026-09-10)Live source ↗
Quote: “Applied Digital avers that it neither accepted nor executed the Third Addendum because Applied Digital did not agree with the terms, arguing that the Parties failed to accurately memorialize the offer.”
How we checked this
Checked on September 20, 2026. The cited source supports every part of this claim.
The document dates the Third Addendum to July 29, 2024, describes it as memorializing early termination, and states Applied Digital's refusal and memorialization argument.
Confirmed in the source:
- Character Tech. sent a Third Addendum on July 29, 2024
- Applied Digital neither accepted nor executed the Third Addendum
- Applied Digital argued the parties failed to accurately memorialize the offer
- The Third Addendum concerned ending the Agreement early
What we did: Read our cached copy of RECAP (https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ded.89549/gov.uscourts.ded.89549.32.0.pdf) in full (48,875 characters, retrieved September 10, 2026) and checked each assertion in the claim against it.
Additional evidence
confirms Character Technologies, Inc. v. Applied Digital Corporation — Entry #32: OPINION AND ORDER: Applied Digital's Partial Motion to Dismiss in Character Tech., Court No
Quote: “Applied Digital avers that it neither accepted nor executed the Third Addendum because Applied Digital did not agree with the terms, arguing that the Parties failed to accurately memorialize the offer.”