It seems that Bruce Kirby has at last applied a blow torch
Having been through the almost 150 pages of documents presented to the US Federal Court, over a long wet weekend here in the UK, I will not be the least surprised if ISAF decides its needs to back away from its previous position. The 1992 ISAF plaque agreement is so simple even this non-lawyer can understand it. And the 1983 original agreement with the IYRU is too.
It would not be hard to imagine in the next week a direction from ISAF to the ILCA to stop issuing plaques to LP.
If that happens then we are in a new world.
Its been proven many times over that One Design racing does not have to be in the fastest boat, it has to be in a uniform boat, so that the very best sailor emerges from the pack.
We have 200k+ of a 1969 design, so it has critical mass. I sat on Nothe Hill in Weymouth and I saw young Australian Tom Slingsby win Gold.
The best sailor emerged from the pack.
As a Laser sailor I was in awe.
Right now the class needs to move forward, I don't care if its called a Laser or a Torch, if the class insignia is upside down (thanks Torrid)
I just want to go sailing, I want to be able to buy a new boat, buy parts and I want to know that the class is run by honourable people and by builders who pay their design royalties to the guy who designed it.. And yes I want a cheaper legal sail
Am I alone??
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: