On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:16 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:

IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later -
> complain about not being able to see the customer's plant.  Nothing about
> the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it.
>

No.  It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from seeing the
customer's facility, in the interview with Mats Lewan.  We haven't heard
that specific complaint from IH or IH's expert, except from parties that
are one step removed.  It is reasonable to infer, however, that IH and
their expert would have complained.  No one has suggested in the last few
weeks that IH replaced the ERV.  Perhaps that is a reference to a
misunderstanding in earlier discussions. They simply brought in someone in
whose qualifications they had some confidence, presumably in contrast to
their assessment of the ERV's qualifications.


> The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit the
> customer's plant.
>

How do we know that the only thing that Rossi stopped the IH employee from
doing was visiting the customer plant?  We don't have access to the
details.


> As has already been covered IH agreed in writing not to.
>

And hopefully Jones Day will be able to make expert use of what was in
writing to bring the matter to justice.


> As has already been covered, it should not be necessary to see how the
> heat was used in order to measure the output of the plant.
>

And as has been effectively rebutted many times, this is incorrect.  IH's
expert will have wanted to know how the heat was being made use of in order
to verify that 1MW was being produced.  It's a theoretical argument to
speculate that once presented with all of the data all that one needs to do
is run the numbers.  No expert would be satisfied at leaving it at that.


> Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was unacceptable AT THE
> BEGINNING.
>

Show us that IH did not say that the test was unacceptable at the
beginning.  Show us that IH will have needed to object to the test at the
beginning for their objections to be valid.

Eric

Reply via email to