Section 16.9 of the licence agreement allows for a party to suspended the agreement if any provision of the agreement is violated by the other party.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not a lawyer. However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly > executed license agreement with IH. He cannot unilaterally cancel that > after money has changed hands. Pragmatically he could not even give the > $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with > other signed documents. The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the > license belongs. In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to > jail by offering the license to anyone else. > > It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very definition > of fraud. > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless >> he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null >> contract; not the rights to the IP. >> >> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: >> >>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have >>> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void. Having >>> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract. Yet >>> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no >>> other contract. This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put >>> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period. He should be >>> collecting his reading material on antigravity. >>> >>> I couldn't help myself. >>> >>> >> >
