On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 6:43 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
If there had been no contract this would have been mentioned in the motion > to dismiss - and the case would have been thrown out. Do you really > think Rossi made it up about the $89 million? > If there is such a contract, hopefully it will come to light. I don't argue that there isn't one. But this detail would not be relevant to the Motion to Dismiss, for IH were not allowed to introduce new evidence at that time, i.e., factual statements, such as "No contract was signed for the Guaranteed Performance Test." They were permitted only to address the allegations that Rossi had raised on their legal merits, assuming, along with the court, that the allegations were true. Hence the footnote in the MTD, which alluded to other facts but did not elaborate, since that was not the place for it. In the Complaint, Rossi alleged that there had been an agreement between him and IH to the GPT and that he had met the conditions needed to start it. In their Answer, IH succinctly deny these allegations. I suppose at a later stage they will elaborate on why they disagree with Rossi about this. Note that IH denied so many of Rossi's allegations, that it's almost like two entirely different accounts were being presented. As I said earlier, I think the judge is going to become irritated with one of the parties as more information comes to light. Eric
