Yes of course. An "obvious fraud" will not fly, but if artfully done -
it could be a question that goes to the jury. This outcome of bad data
passing off as good may be unlikely, but so was various facts that led
to OJ, Rodney King, Casey Anthony and other jury surprises.
In short, juries can do unexpected things, especially if they like or
dislike the parties. Even Abd has admitted that Rossi can apply charm,
and he will certainly have the opportunity.
Curiously, it looks like there is an effort to smear Cherokee as a "fake
environmental company". That has nothing to do with this contract but
this trial may not hinge on facts, like so many others have seemed to go
against "facts".
I guess this is where we bring in "alternative facts". As for the
"obvious" part of the equation, the attempted fraud of the report may be
so obvious that it explains why Penon is not available.
Randy Wuller wrote:
Gentleman:
Any contract requires good faith. If the report and test wasn’t
created in good faith (with a reasonable attempt at complying with
scientific standards), it won’t be sufficient. Penon was identified
as independent, if he wasn’t then the contract for Rossi will not be
enforceable.
The idea Penon could just fraud up the report and Rossi wins is nonsense.
Ransom
*From:*Adrian Ashfield
Jones,
I had thought much the same thing. If the ERV's report is the
deciding factor in the contract it will be difficult to put it aside.
Both sides paid/agreed on the man.
I also agree IH will appeal it for ever if they lose - and ultimately
declare chapter 11 if they lose, rather than pay $89 million plus damages.
AA
