2007 Letter failed to provide such “reasonable detail,” Defendant’s indemnification claims under §§ 9.2(a)(i) and (ii) of the Purchase Agreement have been waived. According to Parkstone, the November 16, 2007 Letter provided Ballard with the requisite “reasonable detail” because it informed him of the specific provisions of the Purchase Agreement purported to be vio lated and because Ballard was already on notice of the specific facts underlying its claims. However, with respect to its claims under §§ 9.2(a)(i) and (ii), Park-stone failed as a matter of law to provide Ballard with sufficient “reasonable detail” to satisfy the notice provision under the explicit terms of the Purchase Agreement. Compare Stena Line (U.K) Ltd. v. Sea Containers Ltd., 758 F.Supp. 934, 936-38 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (<HOLDING>), with Wayrol PLC v. Ameritech Corp., No. 98
recognizing such balance of interests holding that where contract gave sixty days for objecting party to formally dispute balance sheet letter stating that party did not agree or in any way concede that balance sheet was prepared in accordance with the terms of the agreement did not satisfy notice requirement holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements holding that court should balance competing interests holding that notice of foreclosure that failed to provide a reinstatement balance was not defective in the absence of harm caused by the omission