Further, by making these weird, pseudo legal statements, IPLore continues to attempt to misinform.

The builders did not sign the IYRU (ISAF or WS) agreement. Yet IPLore says that the WS agreement is important: The main reason that the WS is relevant to the builders, is because of the builder's agreement, where they agree to be bound as if they are parties. There is no agreement where the trademark owners appoint builders. That is a myth put forward by IPLore. The trademark owners licensed the builders to use the trademarks. IPLore's legal thinking, (if it is to be followed) also says the builder's agreements are in bad shape, and are not particularly relevant. Why IPLore resorts to straw-man attacks on me is because his legal opinions are weak and misinform. I will take it from the posts above that IPLore is wanting to re-engage and spend a few more  years debating these issues - that he does not support retiring this thread.  This specific clause, repeated in all of the builders agreements is why the WS agreement is relevant, and is the specific clause which builders agree to having the boats inspected. Without it, builders would have not agreed to inspections. Not only are the builder's agreements relevant to the dismissal of LPE, they are central.

Clause 9.2 from Brook Shield Motor Services Limited's builder's agreement in 1983: