Note: The following is primarily about the LEGAL aspects of Rossi vs. Darden. However, there is also information relevant to the ROSSI EFFECT at the conclusion of the post.
(From 226-3 pages 9-11)
After some interlude regarding a privileged document, Rossi's lawyers continue with their questioning of Darden:
Q. (BY MR. CHAIKEN)· ·So my question now is as of January -- and I guess your position isn't going to change.· But as of January 2014 it was your opinion that the guaranteed performance test pursuant to the contract could not be performed, correct?
A.· ·Yes, that test.
Q.· ·Right.· And your -- and you believe that you communicated that position to Dr. Rossi orally, but you don't know if you communicated it to him in writing; is that correct?
A.· ·I don't remember whether we did it in writing, but I distinctly remember it orally more than once and, particularly, the issue of he had not transferred the technology.· Therefore, he had breached the agreement.· We were not able to replicate.· The measurements were not accurate.· And we had some very contentious meetings around that including one in Miami that -- where I went down there to meet to talk about that specific subject.
Q.· ·So let me step back a second.· So my understanding was that the guaranteed performance test could not have happened due to timing issues as of October 2013.· The issues relating to being able to replicate and the other issues, were those all -- were hose all issues at that time October 2013 as well?
A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you say that part again.
Q.· ·Yeah.· And I'm a little confused by your prior response because we had been talking about the guaranteed performance tests in terms of timing.
Q.· ·And you just mentioned a whole bunch of other issues that I wasn't sure was the issue as of that time October 2013.
A.· ·Okay.· So those conversations were around, "We're out of contract or, you know, the deal is over or the -- you know, the time has passed.· We're no longer talking about that particular contract. However, we want technology that works.· If we have technology that works that we can replicate then we're willing to discuss with you paying you a lot of money even though we shouldn't have to do that."
Analysis: So Darden is claiming under oath that he told Rossi multiple times that the GPT was off, and that Rossi, prior to Doral (in fact, according to testimony, around October 2013), had 'breached the agreement'. He is also claiming that he was clear that any additional money is not regarding 'that particular contract' (regarding the $89 Million). Instead, he is offering to pay Rossi money if he can get something to work, 'even though we [IH] shouldn't have to do that'.
From a LEGAL perspective, this is Darden's sworn testimony. If Rossi can produce some written document that contradicts this sworn testimony, Darden has a serious problem. ON the other hand, If Rossi cannot produce anything written, in my opinion, he loses the case. Because he has no written agreement of any GPT. The 'Term Sheet' is a rental agreement regarding power to a customer, and (in my opinion) has no chance of being considered a GPT by the court or by a jury.
Also, before all these documents were posted, the earliest that we (in the peanut gallery) could point to clear evidence that IH informed Rossi that Doral was not the GPT was December 2015. According to Darden, Rossi knew that IH said the $89 Million GPT was 'gone' as of Oct 2013!
From the ROSSI EFFECT perspective, Darden states that the 'measurements were not accurate', implying that this is the reason why they at first had some indication of excess heat. According to Darden's testimony, as many have previously speculated, the reason for initially positive results was the most obvious and likely one: inaccurate measurement.