Note: this post is regarding the LEGAL aspects of Rossi vs. Darden. It has no relevance to the ROSSI EFFECT or PSYCHOSOCIAL issues.
I believe it is a critically important defect in Rossi's suit against IH that there is no signed GPT agreement and no written evidence that there was any written agreement in Darden or Vaughn's emails.
The reason for this is that we now know (from the exhibit that Rossi just posted, 226-03, with an excerpt of Darden's deposition) that Darden is stating that he told Rossi multiple times before the move of the 1MW Plant to Doral, that all options for Performance on Rossi's $89 Million GPT had expired.
For Rossi to prevail, he has the burden of proof to show that in fact there was a remaining $89 Million GPT Performance option. And Rossi's testimony is insufficient. It is insufficient even ignoring the clear evidence of his demonstrated purposeful deception, because this would just be a 'he said, she said' argument which can not prevail with a contract of this magnitude. Any Judge (and that includes a Judge giving instructions to a jury) will state that for a contract of this magnitude, hearsay is not sufficient evidence of an agreement. Add to this Rossi's character burden and it is just not realistic to believe that Rossi has a possibility to prevail without stronger written evidence of an actual signed GPT or at least some evidence that Darden or Vaughn explicitly (in an email or somewhere) stated to Rossi that Doral was an official GPT.
There are dozens of other reasons that Rossi could fail to win if there were a written agreement (legal standing of Leonardo NH vs. Leonardo FL, evidence that the Doral plant didn't meet performance, etc.). But this lack of a written GPT seems like a critical fatal flaw, in my opinion.