IPLore

Members
  • Content Count

    1,480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

IPLore last won the day on May 7 2019

IPLore had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

641 F'n Saint

About IPLore

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Atlanta

Recent Profile Visitors

1,868 profile views
  1. Class Associations and their pool of enthusiastic and experienced volunteers are :- 1. By far the most cost effective marketing tool for promoting the sale (for profit) of one design small sail boats 2. By far the most cost effective manner of organizing one design small boat racing. Ask Gouvernail, how much the entry fee for the Easter regatta would have to be if he charged for his time promoting and organizing regatta (whatever number Gouv comes up with, I bet he underestimates the time he spends) and the time of his volunteers who help run the racing. Gouv? The Star League costs a fortune to run. LP does not have that kind of money. Trying to replicate everything that a Class Association does, with paid employees, would not be a very smart business move ......but then, when has Rastegaar demonstrated any business smarts/ people skills ?
  2. They tried that with the Sunfish. It didnt work so well.
  3. I replied Bruce.....you replied that I had not answered the question. I answered the question but I fear that you did not understand my answer, so I will try again and answer another question you asked along the way. The Builder/Kirby contracts created no contractual obligations for the ILCA. (i) A contract cannot create an obligation for an entity or natural person who is not a party to the contract. There are a few esoteric exceptions that we don't need to deal with here. (ii) The language of the Builder/Kirby agreement did not attempt to create an obligation for the ILCA. The European agreement between LPE (formerly known as Brookshaw Motors) and BKI had no language creating any obligation for ILCA. The North American Agreement between PY Boats (subsequently assigned to Quarter Moon/Vanguard) and BKI restated some of the obligations that the Builder owed to ILCA under the IYRU contract . The language of the contracts did not impose any obligations on ILCA. For example, the obligation to send a copy of the report on the number of boats built to the ILCA reinforced an existing obligation on the Builder, and did not create an obligation for the ILCA. The North American Builder agrees to comply with the terms of the IYRU agreement which includes allowing the ILCA to inspect the manufacturing facility, it creates no obligation on the ILCA to actually inspect those facilities. The Builders agreements created no obligations on behalf of the ILCA. The words I would use to describe ILCA's relationship with the Builders Agreements would be "Third Party Beneficiary" or more particularly in relationship to the North American Builders Agreement the ILCA might have had a claim to being an "An intended third party beneficiary". A third party beneficiary is not a party to the contract. In reality, the ILCA would not and did not lay claim to being an intended third party beneficiary under the Builders Agreement (all kinds of unnecessary hurdles to that route) In real life, the ILCA would and did rely on the IYRU agreement to enforce the right to inspect a manufacturing facility , not the Builder's agreement
  4. Would it be nitpicking of me to observe that you can't do that?
  5. 1. Retired means RETIRED!!!!!!!!!! I shall be using Clean's disclaimer going forward. 2. From the standard template for WS agreements "This agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of England"
  6. Fantastic disclaimer. May I use it?
  7. "breech of law" "legal council" Are we a pear of idiots for trying to explain the lore?
  8. Can you imagine what this post would have looked like before spell check?
  9. By definition, a contract cannot impose a "contracted obligation" on an entity or natural person who is not a party to the contract. The ILCA was NOT a party to the original Kirby/Builder agreements thus those agreements did not impose a "contracted obligation" (your words) on the ILCA. The Kirby/Builder agreements are Exhibit 4 , pages 61-83 and Exhibit 8, starting at page 103 of the amended complaint attached to my post #5209. Anyone can read them. Once Again, in conclusion (I hope), the ILCA was not a party to the Builder /Kirby Contracts.!!!!!
  10. IPLore

    Brexit WTF, WTF

    Whaaat? The quote by Mr. Vickers the Euro-sceptic MP for Cleesthorpe has got to be a keeper for the history books I paraphrase what he said: The possibility of free trade between northern Lincolnshire’s ports and the EU is something we couldn’t do when we were part of the EU ...But once we get control of our own economy again, that is one of the things that could be looked at and which could be very beneficial......this emphasises the freedoms and opportunities that could be opening up after Brexit
  11. IPLore

    Brexit WTF, WTF

    Excellent summary. Thank you.
  12. IPLore

    Brexit WTF, WTF

    Thanks for the Cliff Notes. My comments in red.
  13. Kirby - First Amended Complaint - final1 WITH Appendices-1.pdf Have fun.
  14. Are we good on this? The ILCA were a party to the IYRU agreement. They were not a party to the Builders /Kirby agreement. Have we reached comprehension?