Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Now, the way I recall the refund offer story was that a poster on ECW suggested some sort of settlement that might be amicable rather than the increasingly nasty lawsuit progression and may have suggested a money back offer of some sort, that then was reposted to JoNP and subsequently blown all out of proportion, since both Rossi and Dewey were surprised about this and as a result of misunderstandings both said some stuff. The original ECW poster was quite understandably flustered and upset by the way it blew up.

In the Rossi court case thread on this forum, it was acknowledged at the time that the offer WAS posted on the JONP. Even Dewey acknowledged it, he just kept saying it was BS, like he does now.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

My version of the story satisfies both sentences.

Good, then we're at the point where facts are accepted and we argue from those facts into our surmisions.... I know that's not a 'real' word but it fits.

Quote from JedRothwell

Claiming something in a blog is not making a legal offer.

***Sure it is. ANY offer is a legal offer, even verbal offers. But whether or not it's ENFORCEable, now that's a different story. But if it was in writing (which it was, on the blog) then it is admissible.

That doesn't count.

***Sure it does. It just goes back to that enforceability thing. Since the offer was in writing, then Rossi would have had to say it was a joke or something. But it would be there, for the lawyers to make hay out of.

For it to be a legal offer, Rossi would have to have his lawyer send them a signed letter making the offer.

***Nope. Any offer is a legal offer, unless it's an illegal offer, like offering sex for money. But to make sure all the legal p's and q's and legal ducks are in a row, that's when you want your lawyer and their lawyer to agree on the terms.

They could not go to the judge and say "he made the offer on his blog."

***They sure as hell could, as soon as it was posted on the blog. They entered other stuff from the blog, so the blog was admissible evidence.

That would be like saying, "someone overheard him say this at a Waffle House."

***No, it would be like saying, "Jed offered me a $million for writing one paragraph, and he signed it right here on this Waffle House napkin".

Anyway, the judge would have no standing in the decision.

***Interesting perspective, but it completely overlooks how much authority judges have. The judge could, in her instructions to the jury, directly tell them that "the reason they have had to sit through this boring trial is because that man over there, Dr. Rossi, submitted a fake offer to settle and then reneged on it. Keep that in mind during your deliberations."

If he had made a formal offer,

***You're stuck on formality. Go ahead and send me an offer signed by you, for $1Million for 1 paragraph of writing on this blog, and you'll soon see how much trouble that will cause you. I could sue you for the $coolMil, and you'd retract the offer, you'd have to pay court costs, show cause as to why you are not fulfilling your contract, etc. If my lawyer fees were paid for, I could push it all the way through the court systems to your bankruptcy, if I wanted. If you had a $Million lying around, it would be cheaper for you to pay it than fight it if I was one of those legal eagles.

it would be up to I.H. and their lawyers to accept it,

***Yes

not the judge.

***The judge has LOTS of power to push solutions through, and I smell that this is exactly what happened in this settlement.

I do not know much about the law or contracts, but I do know this. Loose talk, blog postings, or tweets do not constitute legal agreements,

***An offer is an offer, whether it's written on a napkin or a blogpost. You're right, it does not constitute an agreement because the OTHER SIDE has to accept the offer. Even then, the offer has to be ENFORCEable. Industrial Heat didn't even ACCEPT this offer.

or proposed agreements.

***That's where ya got it wrong. Ya might look up the word "Tort" and start reading, to realize just how far this concept of implied contracts goes.

An agreement is something you send by mail in a signed document.

***A GOOD AGREEment. But a BAD agreement , like say a BLOG POST offer accepted, would basically just be mill for grinding in the legal process. And it would be far more valuable for one side than the other.

To conclude it, both sides have to sign and notarize it.

***NO. You'll see. Just write an offer for me to write one ordinary paragraph of 100 characters here on this blog and you'll pay me $1Million, nay make it $5Million to make it worth my while to bankrupt you. In the meantime, read up on torts and contracts.

I.H. would not be able to point to

***They sure as hell can

or enforce

***That's the main gist, USUALLY. But IH could have used that offer as leverage to beat up Rossi in court. All they need to do is let it slip during final concluding remarks that the jury never even would have had to be there if they were allowed to accept Rossi's offer, and then the judge would have to instruct the jury to "disregard that remark". Could YOU disregard that remark, after sitting through weeks of boring bullshit testimony about some ridiculous heat technology? Well, YOU could, because you know what it's about, but most jurors would latch onto that remark and punish the person who sent them through that hell.

a casual comment in a blog. Rossi could just say, "I changed my mind."

***Which is his right to do. And it's also the judge's right to let the jury know just how casually he treats their valuable time.

Whereas you cannot change your mind about what you write in a signed, notarized document.

***People change their minds all the time in such agreements. That's how lawyers get rich.

That is enforceable.

***Now you're starting to figure out the enforceability angle. But you haven't really yet caught onto the standard lawyer sleaze trick of making the other side's life a living hell.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

OK.

Where is the offer post(s) on JoNP?

I'm not going to even bother looking for it. Suffice it to say that at the time it was acknowledged by both sides of the debate that the offer WAS up on the JONP blog at some time.

This counts as an inductive touch point, a FACT admitted by both sides.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do recall this was on his blog. I am pretty sure of that.

***Inductive touch point. A FACT.

However, as I said, this has no more legal significance than a casual comment made at a Waffle House.

***A surmision. And shown to be wrong above. It had legal significance in that it was ADMISSIBLE and could be used to make Rossi's life a living hell in front of the judge.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, it has to be made to them, in writing or in verbal negotiation with them. Not to the world at large in a blog, but to them.

***You're flat wrong here. An offer on a blog to settle a court case between 2 aggrieved parties would rapidly narrow down the focus of what that offer is about. Even if it's on a blog.

Also, a verbal offer has to be written down and signed after is it made.

***No, it does NOT. Look up the legal definition of the word "Tort". You make contracts all day long with the world around you without even noticing it.

That makes it an enforceable legal offer.

***Torts are enforceable, they're just hard to win, like the lady who got $1.5Million from McDonald's for spilling coffee on her lap while driving.

If it remained verbal, even if they had a recording, Rossi could say "I changed my mind."

***That's fine, people are entitled to change their mind but courts have a tendency to look askance at people who accept offers and then blithely change their mind.

Nothing is enforceable until it written and signed.

***Rossi's offer WAS in writing. It was on HIS blog, which is tantamount to signing.

A comment made to someone else does not count.

***It sure as hell does.

A comment to the whole world in a blog does not count.

***It sure as hell does. And Rossi even took advantage of that when he threatened to sue Wikipedia over his Wiki entry and got all kinds of information changed.

It has be addressed directly to the party you are negotiating with (verbally or in writing).

***No it doesn't. Shall we take this discussion somewhere off table? Perhaps there's a legal blog to post this to...? Naturally, I would prefer to settle this dispute on DISQUS, such as this site that will settle any dispute. But I doubt you'd be happy with it.

https://disqus.com/home/channel/mediateyourdispute/

As I said, I don't know much about the law, but I have been involved in contracts enough to be sure of this.

***And I have been involved with enough torts to be sure of this as well. I notice that you're NOT writing an offer to me for $5Million to write another paragraph here. I'll take that as a snide sign that you don't really believe what you're writing.

Quote from JedRothwell

[email protected] wrote:

It had legal significance in that it was ADMISSIBLE and could be used to make Rossi's life a living hell in front of the judge.

Jed:

Nope. Not unless is it signed, notarized, and agreed to by both sides.

***Again, you're flat wrong. All those niceties make it more enFORCEable, but have nothing to do with whether it's ADMISSible.

Even if it was a formal offer from Rossi in a letter from his lawyer, unless there was another letter showing I.H. accepted it it, it would not hurt Rossi's case.

***Nonsense.

On the contrary, it would bolster his position. He could say: "Here is proof I made a good faith offer. They did not accept it. There is no letter from them accepting it."

***And then the judge just turns her face to the defendants and asks if they accept the offer. Rossi would have to mumble and shuffle around about withdrawing the offer, that kind of thing. Every lawyer knows not to piss off the judge.

If they reject the offer, or they don't respond, he can send another letter saying he withdraws it. Bringing them back to square one.

***The whole point isn't enforceability, it is that the judge can use her authority to make Rossi regret ever withdrawing the offer. I'm surprised IH didn't do it. But I was surprised by a couple of other things in this case anyways.

Admittedly, this can be a grey area, but just by knowing about an unaccepted offer, the judge can make life miserable for the other party.

Settlement Negotiations as Evidence at Trial: Pitfalls of Rule 408 ...

http://www.dallasbar.org/book-…e-trial-pitfalls-rule-408

Jun 29, 2015 - Actually, the rule only excludes negotiations and offers to compromise from evidence if they are used to prove liability or the validity or amount of a claim. ... There are many instances when settlement communications and offers to compromise are admissible in trial and many can be very harmful to a case.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Rossi never made a verbal or written offer to any responsible party at IH to buy back his IP from IH. It didn't happen.

It happened on JONP, even Jed admits it here upthread. Dewey will hide behind the words "responsible party".

Quote from JedRothwell

She wasn't driving. She was sitting in a parking lot. The coffee was much hotter than safety laws allowed. McDonalds had injured several other people with it, and had been warned about this. She was nearly killed by the burns. In retrospect, it would have been astounding if she had lost, and it would have been a miscarriage of justice. See:

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

Well, now, did SHE have a written contract from McDonald's? Even written on a McDonald's napkin? NOPE. It was a tort.