At 04:01 PM 8/3/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. He may be finding some excess
heat, but his demonstrations and comments amount to fraud anyway.
Exaggerating his results is a form of fraud, and that kind of fraud
has happened before. Come to think of it, possibly with Rossi. It's
not criminal fraud, as far as I know. He can tell the public any
story he wants, it's not illegal to lie to the public.
Yes it is, if they're potential investors.
Nope. Generally, investors and the one receiving the investment will
sign a contract, and this contract will typically declare that all
representations made outside the contract are null and void. Yes,
this means that whatever the used-car salesman tells you about that
used car means nothing. All binding representations will be in the contract.
I'm amazed how many people don't realize this. Goes to show how poor
our educational systems are when it comes to stuff that is actually
important, like contract law. Remember studying any contract law in
high school? I sure don't!
And if this is a fraud, and if the investors in Defkalion really
exist, then somebody's been doing something illegal, that's for sure.
Nonsense. Defkalion has entered into a contract for the delivery of
something that didn't exist at the time of the execution of the
contract. I'm quite sure that the contract provides for the
contingency of failure to deliver.
(But maybe the laws are different in Greece, and you can tell
stockholders anything you want...)
Defkalion is responsible for what Defkalion tells its stockholders.
Rossi is not responsible for that! He's responsible for what he puts
in writing in his contract with Defkalion.
Rossi has not taken any investment, so it's moot. He's apparently
taken some money from Ampenergo, but without knowing what that money
was for, and what representations were made to them, it's impossible
to judge it.
What I'd expect Defkalion to tell its investors is that it has
entered into a contract for the purchase of Rossi reactors. They
might state that they hope that this will be a lucrative business. If
they are right, great.
If not, well, they made a mistake. "Mistake" is not fraud, not
usually. Judging whether or not they exercised due diligence (i.e.,
they could be accused of negligence, of failing to exercise a
fiduciary duty) would be awfully difficult without knowing exactly
what they've done. And we don't.
My sense, though, is that they have spent only a tiny fraction of
what has been committed, and they are merely preparing for the
hoped-for delivery.
