Adrian—
I would say you are correct about the license not being established, since the
payment was not made. I would suspect that Rossi wanted the extra $89M after
the 1 week test and only agreed to delay payment of the entire amount based on
a proposal from Darden to do the 1 year test. Notes from the negotiations are
probably very important to add to full understanding of the agreement. This
would be especially important if, IH did not intend to pay the full amount and
still signed the agreement knowing that Rossi expected the full $99M.
Bob Cook
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: a.ashfield<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2016 4:14 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit
Bob,
So you say, but it is not that simple.
The contract and the license are only valid if both parties follow the
agreement. Right now Rossi has done so as reported by the ERV. IH have
not as they have not paid up. It is not IH taking Rossi to court for
failure to comply and IH don't own rights to the IP until they have paid
for it. The price was $100 million and IH reasonably said they would
not pay it all until the concept was proven. The ERV says it has been
proven to work. The court will decide but before payment IH do not own
the license
On 7/1/2016 6:31 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
> Of course, Rossi may have a case. Also, he may not have a case. This
> would be for the courts to decide. No matter what, Rossi cannot
> unilaterally nullify the license. He would have to sue in civil
> courts to have the license contract dissolved for cause. Until the
> court says otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was
> signed and money changed hands. We do not know whether the court will
> side with IH or Rossi. If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another
> license for the same region, there would be no question that he would
> be getting fitted for a striped suit immediately.
>
> Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that
> could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with
> IH in any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the
> license contract is dissolved. This probably puts licensing of his
> "quarkX" technology in limbo in all of those regions as well. Rossi
> seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot understand.
> Unless he gets some kind of motion to have the license dissolved in
> the mean time, he could go to jail for selling licenses to regions
> already licensed to IH, and anyone who bought such a license from him
> would stand to lose all of their money.
>
> Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up
> appearances of being in the high ground. However, this will not keep
> him out of jail if he commits fraud.
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Bob,
> He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract
> and paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.
>
> On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins 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
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
