Come on Eric. The basic case is that Rossi said IH failed to pay him.
Obviously if there had not been a contract IH would have answered it
that way.
On 8/13/2016 7:51 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 6:43 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto: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
