Wess

ILCA gives LPE the boot... seeking new Laser builder

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

then the response at #4789 is a little disappointing.

Welcome to life

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

Example- When I started our frostbite group 4 years ago I would always have at least a 3 boat fleet.  Me, myself and I.  At the end of the day I would e-mail everyone who had expressed interest, (but didn't show) about the great day I had and what they missed.  Eventually another boat showed up and brought his kid.  Weekly "rah-rah" e-mails continued then more showed.  This weekend will be our 2nd FB Saturday and I won't be there, but it's looking like we're going to have 8 boats.  They are all trading e-mails back and forth on their and they are even organizing their own RC because the regular RC can't make it, (it's kinda like raising a kid and watching them go off on their own all eager). Last year 8 boats was a record turn out well into the FB series.  We're hitting that number on FB day 2 this year.  ILCA had nothing to do with this.

Grass roots.

Lives will be changed, for the better.

Well done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

I understand.  So much has happened in the last 20 years.  Vanguard going bankrupt, LPE coming in and then getting a vacation.  Cost of new boats on a steady increase as demand wanes for them with a nice used boat market.  However, in my experience regatta participation has more to do with the Organizing Authority properly promoting the event and then the host/OA putting on a GREAT event that has value to keep the interest up. This has to happen at the local level.  We've had fantastic success at a district level, (especially this year) that has taken 3 years of hard work by several dedicated individuals, (and all of those inspired to sail) to drive and we're keeping it going with constant tweaks and new ideas.  The class office has been supportive with requests, information and the expected expense reimbursement, (even though we spend some of our own cash as well) but they've had absolutely zero to do with this growth and that's exactly what I expect from them or any other class organization.  It's the "feet on the street" that make things happen on the ground level.  Management does the management stuff.  

Example- When I started our frostbite group 4 years ago I would always have at least a 3 boat fleet.  Me, myself and I.  At the end of the day I would e-mail everyone who had expressed interest, (but didn't show) about the great day I had and what they missed.  Eventually another boat showed up and brought his kid.  Weekly "rah-rah" e-mails continued then more showed.  This weekend will be our 2nd FB Saturday and I won't be there, but it's looking like we're going to have 8 boats.  They are all trading e-mails back and forth on their and they are even organizing their own RC because the regular RC can't make it, (it's kinda like raising a kid and watching them go off on their own all eager). Last year 8 boats was a record turn out well into the FB series.  We're hitting that number on FB day 2 this year.  ILCA had nothing to do with this. 

Well said.

People seem to want to hold ILCA responsible for everything. But of the five goals/expectations I listed in #5098, the leaders of ILCA really have to concentrate on the first four, and leave it to people like @RobbieB to drum up enthusiasm at a local level.

I seem to have spent most of my sailing life as one of those local cheerleaders in one capacity or another - fleet captain, district secretary etc - in three different classes now. It's hard work and I'm not as good at it as some people are, but somebody has to do it else local sailing dies out. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so turns another page in the endless saga of "Hey ILCA - pay your own way you bunch of pick-pockets!"

Otherwise known as "take your hidden boat fees and get off my lawn you deadbeats!!!""

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Wess said:

And so turns another page in the endless saga of "Hey ILCA - pay your own way you bunch of pick-pockets!"

Otherwise known as "take your hidden boat fees and get off my lawn you deadbeats!!!""

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

Example- When I started our frostbite group 4 years ago I would always have at least a 3 boat fleet.  Me, myself and I.  At the end of the day I would e-mail everyone who had expressed interest, (but didn't show) about the great day I had and what they missed.  Eventually another boat showed up and brought his kid.  Weekly "rah-rah" e-mails continued then more showed.  This weekend will be our 2nd FB Saturday and I won't be there, but it's looking like we're going to have 8 boats.  They are all trading e-mails back and forth on their and they are even organizing their own RC because the regular RC can't make it, (it's kinda like raising a kid and watching them go off on their own all eager). Last year 8 boats was a record turn out well into the FB series.  We're hitting that number on FB day 2 this year.  ILCA had nothing to do with this. 

This is all great and I applaud it.  We were lucky enough to have 15 Lasers (all rigs) out for race 1 of our club Frostbite series last weekend, and 11 of another singlehanded class (Solo), thanks to the efforts of fleet captains and many others.

By your own admission ILCA has nothing to do with the growth of your local fleet.  And yet ILCA have removed the rights of the designer, removed the rights of the trademark holders, increased unavoidable fees levied on new purchases, binned the supplier of most of the worlds boats and, by appearing in a promotional video for a third party rig, have caused confusion about the future of the design.  Not forgetting that they prematurely announced and had to retract a change of class name and hangers lost the support of their largest region, EurILCA.

Support for ILCA is like having Stockholm syndrome. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

By your own admission ILCA has nothing to do with the growth of your local fleet.  And yet ILCA have removed the rights of the designer, removed the rights of the trademark holders, increased unavoidable fees levied on new purchases, binned the supplier of most of the worlds boats and, by appearing in a promotional video for a third party rig, have caused confusion about the future of the design.  Not forgetting that they prematurely announced and had to retract a change of class name and hangers lost the support of their largest region, EurILCA.

Well, the voting would not indicate ILCA lost the support of EurILCA.  There is however at least one leader of EurILCA who has been vocal in a negative way, (with rumors surrounding his motivations...).  

Regarding premature announcements- You're spot on and for that exact reason is why we haven't been hearing a lot.  After those missteps they are going to make sure I's are dotted and T's crossed before making additional announcements, (as they should).

I'm glad for the rights being removed and no one is any longer held hostage by 1 particular supplier.  Again, raising costs.  Check the market.  Laser is still one of the best values out there and THE best if you're looking to hitch up your boat and participate in regattas, (with a class) pretty much anywhere.

Andy's reply in the disappointing post you referred to may have been a bit gruff, but you have to understand these folks, (all volunteer and Laser sailors) are really working very hard to do the right things for the class here. Not being able to let the world know where they are in contract details and other things is really frustrating.  And coming to SA and reading some of the posts is like getting tossed into a boxing ring with your hands tied behind your back.

It's been a rough year, but good things are happening.  I suggest this.  Make your "yes" - "No" list:

1- do you have a Laser?     2- do you love your laser?    3- do you want to sail your laser with other laser sailors?   

If your answer is "Yes" to at least 2 of those questions.  Then Make it Happen!  Get on e-mail, the phone, call your friends, clubs that have fleets and get out with them on the water!  It's really up to the individual at a local level as to how they will or won't enjoy what they can have access to.  Sitting around wringing your hands over all the Class related BS is similar to sitting around wondering when and how you're going to die.  Seriously, life is too short.  Control what YOU can control!

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

I'm glad for the rights being removed and no one is any longer held hostage by 1 particular supplier.  Again, raising costs.  Check the market.  Laser is still one of the best values out there and THE best if you're looking to hitch up your boat and participate in regattas, (with a class) pretty much anywhere.

 

If you judge on actions rather than words the first sentence above is the complete opposite of the actual state of affairs.

Regardless of whether the old model or the new one results in lower costs, Rastegar payed good money to be the rightful owner of the tradename for the Laser (and employed many people) and the class association have pulled the rug out from under him (and presumably lost fabricators their livelihoods).  Doesn’t stop Rasty being a prick, but doesn’t put the CA in a good light either imho.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RobbieB said:

I understand.  So much has happened in the last 20 years.  Vanguard going bankrupt, LPE coming in and then getting a vacation.  Cost of new boats on a steady increase as demand wanes for them with a nice used boat market.  However, in my experience regatta participation has more to do with the Organizing Authority properly promoting the event and then the host/OA putting on a GREAT event that has value to keep the interest up. This has to happen at the local level.  We've had fantastic success at a district level, (especially this year) that has taken 3 years of hard work by several dedicated individuals, (and all of those inspired to sail) to drive and we're keeping it going with constant tweaks and new ideas.  The class office has been supportive with requests, information and the expected expense reimbursement, (even though we spend some of our own cash as well) but they've had absolutely zero to do with this growth and that's exactly what I expect from them or any other class organization.  It's the "feet on the street" that make things happen on the ground level.  Management does the management stuff.  

Example- When I started our frostbite group 4 years ago I would always have at least a 3 boat fleet.  Me, myself and I.  At the end of the day I would e-mail everyone who had expressed interest, (but didn't show) about the great day I had and what they missed.  Eventually another boat showed up and brought his kid.  Weekly "rah-rah" e-mails continued then more showed.  This weekend will be our 2nd FB Saturday and I won't be there, but it's looking like we're going to have 8 boats.  They are all trading e-mails back and forth on their and they are even organizing their own RC because the regular RC can't make it, (it's kinda like raising a kid and watching them go off on their own all eager). Last year 8 boats was a record turn out well into the FB series.  We're hitting that number on FB day 2 this year.  ILCA had nothing to do with this. 

What you wrote is lost on some here. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

If you judge on actions rather than words the first sentence above is the complete opposite of the actual state of affairs.

Regardless of whether the old model or the new one results in lower costs, Rastegar payed good money to be the rightful owner of the tradename for the Laser (and employed many people) and the class association have pulled the rug out from under him (and presumably lost fabricators their livelihoods).  Doesn’t stop Rasty being a prick, but doesn’t put the CA in a good light either imho.  

PSA do seem to be moving swiftly to establish themselves as the dominant supplier of "Lasers" in the former territories of LaserPerformance.

When any new builders get round to being approved, will they be able to compete against the market dominance of PSA?

Maybe we will end up with what is effectively a Single Manufacturer One Design for the "Laser." Could be worse. Seems to work well in other classes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tillerman said:

PSA do seem to be moving swiftly to establish themselves as the dominant supplier of "Lasers" in the former territories of LaserPerformance.

When any new builders get round to being approved, will they be able to compete against the market dominance of PSA?

Maybe we will end up with what is effectively a Single Manufacturer One Design for the "Laser." Could be worse. Seems to work well in other classes.

Really?. When LP ceased to be a supplier of legal lasers, PSA automatically became the "dominant supply" without having to do anything other than continue business as usual. What they have done in addition to "business as usual" is to attempt to plug the gap as best as possible. However, they are still way down on the production numbers needed and have no ability to expand any further with their current premises, staff and equipment.

Once new builders start manufacturing, they will have a big advantage in their local markets because it costs money to ship boats around the world. So seeing that PSA cannot meet global demand, have stated they do not want to expand their business beyond current capacity and do not wish to compete in the countries where the new builders are set up, the only way that the new builders would be in trouble is if there is no demand, in which case this whole discussion is pointless anyway

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tillerman said:

PSA do seem to be moving swiftly to establish themselves as the dominant supplier of "Lasers" in the former territories of LaserPerformance.

Wasn't that their plan from the day one? I mean from the moment all this Kirby/Spencer/PSA/Torch story started. Seems like PSA have succeeded, for a moment, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ojfd said:

Wasn't that their plan from the day one? I mean from the moment all this Kirby/Spencer/PSA/Torch story started. Seems like PSA have succeeded, for a moment, at least.

It certainly seemed like GS/PSA have had a plan to dominate the global Laser market.. ever since Global Sailing posted this ad on Scuttlebutt Europe in August of 2010. I find it hard to believe they won't find a way to seize the opportunity now.
 

Global Sailing Limited
We are looking for enthusiastic and well established marine dealers to become national or multi national distributors in the European region for the Bruce Kirby designed Olympic Sailing Dinghy.

This well established brand has already attracted over 200,000 devoted sailors globally and its long term future remains extremely positive. Over 4500 new boats were produced in 2009. Further details will be available after receipt of your expression of interest. 
Contact: +61 458 800 651 kevinmccann.pte@gmail.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If LPE is not appointed as approved builder ASAP, it might look from the outside as if LPE is being driven out of its markets. One also gets an impression that ILCA are in bed with PSA at the moment.

Do I smell another lawsuit here? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ojfd said:

If LPE is not appointed as approved builder ASAP, it might look from the outside as if LPE is being driven out of its markets. One also gets an impression that ILCA are in bed with PSA at the moment.

Do I smell another lawsuit here? :unsure:

Of course ILCA are in bed with PSA. But nobody cares. The issue is the unfulfilled promise for ILCA to name new builders for LP’s territories. Maybe PSA doesn’t want them to?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LMI said:

Of course ILCA are in bed with PSA. But nobody cares. The issue is the unfulfilled promise for ILCA to name new builders for LP’s territories. Maybe PSA doesn’t want them to?

Is it an unfilled promise or is the process of vetting and approving new builders turning out to be much more complicated and lengthy than everyone originally assumed? Also isn't there some wish not to introduce new builders in the period immediately before an Olympic Games?

Whatever the reason, while LPE remains on ILCA's naughty list, the world is wide open for PSA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sosoomii said:

Rastegar payed good money to be the rightful owner of the tradename for the Laser (and employed many people) and the class association have pulled the rug out from under him 

But the superficial appearance is that he repeatedly pulled the rug under himself.  The builders were protected by a mesh of contracts that made it almost impossible to dislodge a builder who was fulfilling their contractual obligations.

First LPE appears to have broken their contractual obligations to the design owners by ceasing to pay the not especially huge builder's royalty, but they were given a pass on that by firstly ILCA making the fundamental rule change in their favour, and secondly by the US legal system apparently making the contracts effectively unenforceable.

Secondly LPE appears to have broken their contractual obligations to ILCA by refusing the not very onerous factory inspections, which have ILCA very little choice but to pull the plug. The Laser is nothing if its not identical boats. 

This is what's so mystifying about the whole thing. LPE may well have decided that everyone was out to get them, but surely if you think everyone is out to get you the one thing you do is to make sure that the other guys are the ones to break the contracts. Unfortunately everyone is so addicted to spin and fake history that we'll surely never know what the motivation was.
 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JimC said:

First LPE appears to have broken their contractual obligations to the design owners by ceasing to pay the not especially huge builder's royalty, but they were given a pass on that by firstly ILCA making the fundamental rule change in their favour, and secondly by the US legal system apparently making the contracts effectively unenforceable.

It’s a shame LP did this and that ILCA changed the rule to support them.  It seemed a trivial thing to argue over, but is perhaps an indication that all the parties, including ILCA, have differing future plans for the class.  

30 minutes ago, JimC said:

Secondly LPE appears to have broken their contractual obligations to ILCA by refusing the not very onerous factory inspections, which have ILCA very little choice but to pull the plug. The Laser is nothing if its not identical boats. 

LP are on record as saying they did not refuse an inspection, but they did ask that the ILCA inspector was accompanied by someone from WS.  

Anyhow, until some more news comes along I’m out for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 8:11 PM, bill4 said:

Hah! Jackalopes do exist. I saw a stuffed one on the wall of a gas station coffee shop just east of Medicine Hat on the way to Elbow, Saskatchewan. Pulling a couple Lasers to the Nationals on Lake Diefenbaker. I am thinking 1978 or so. Ya can’t bullshit me, Wess. But nice try.

Elbow was ‘78. Legendary regatta. Blew the poodle off the chain. Entries from I think every province (except PEI). Top 7 (from memory): T. Neilson, S. Fleckenstein, E. Martin, The Dirker, G. Mercier, A. Roy, T. McLaughlin. 
I remember meeting the town mayor. He also pumped gas and tended bar in the “Licensed Beverage Room” (as it was called). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sosoomii said:

LP are on record as saying they did not refuse an inspection, but they did ask that the ILCA inspector was accompanied by someone from WS.  

That *is* refusing an inspection.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Old Yeller said:

 ILCA is pleased to announce that, under the terms of the new builder approval procedure, seven manufacturers will now be offered provisional licenses to move forward in the builder application process. The provisional approvals come after the formal builder applications were reviewed by the evaluation panel appointed by ILCA, which is comprised of both class representatives and independent industry experts. Each builder applicant is now subject to a further technical review to ensure compliance with the established class one-design principles. The new manufacturers will now be required to obtain certified molds and tooling from ILCA and produce a number of pre-production boats to verify the ability to manufacturer boats to the strict specifications and tolerances of the building manual and the class rules. 

See that @Wess ?   SEVEN new builders... potentially.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, aroy210677 said:

Elbow was ‘78. Legendary regatta. Blew the poodle off the chain. Entries from I think every province (except PEI). Top 7 (from memory): T. Neilson, S. Fleckenstein, E. Martin, The Dirker, G. Mercier, A. Roy, T. McLaughlin. 
I remember meeting the town mayor. He also pumped gas and tended bar in the “Licensed Beverage Room” (as it was called). 

That's quite a memory you have! Future Olympic/PanAm/world's medalists racing in the middle of nowhere. The actual middle of nowhere...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LMI said:

They keep singing that the sun will come out tomorrow. But tomorrow never comes.

People who are always waiting for someone else to make the sun come out for them are doomed to disappointment.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tillerman said:

People who are always waiting for someone else to make the sun come out for them are doomed to disappointment.

People who sail Aeros are doomed to disappointment.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 10:55 AM, sosoomii said:

LP are on record

LP's statements are rarely supported by any relationship to reality

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

LP's statements are rarely supported by any relationship to reality

IIRC, WS were to do an inspection as part of the selection process:

"(2) Visits to production and/or assembly sites for shortlisted tenderers by World Sailing Technical and Offshore Department Staff;"

and LP invited ILCA to join them. A "visit" isn't what ILCA were looking for.

Edited by bill4
changed "they" to "LP"
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

LP's statements are rarely supported by any relationship to reality

 Neither is most of the information on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, bill4 said:

IIRC, WS were to do an inspection as part of the selection process:

"(2) Visits to production and/or assembly sites for shortlisted tenderers by World Sailing Technical and Offshore Department Staff;"

and LP invited ILCA to join them. A "visit" isn't what ILCA were looking for.

I think ILCA were probably looking for people who sign contracts to honor them

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I think ILCA were probably looking for people who sign contracts to honor them

So not this guy

  • Image result for image of a janitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed a big change over the last few months with this thread: most people here are posting accurate information. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 7:01 PM, JimC said:

That *is* refusing an inspection.

Hilarious. They refused inspections year after year after year. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see seven potential builders for the Laser.  Just in the last few weeks, as the Laser District 23 Secretary, I pulled together emails from the four corners states and Wyoming, that make up D23. We have almost 400 email addresses.  It's a testament to the history of the Laser class and I'm happy to have pulled all of that together and to now communicate more effectively with all of those sailors.  

We'll use the new D23 newsletter to share regattas, results, classifieds, and group purchase programs so that the Laser class sees new growth in 2020 and forward.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Absolutely!! Everybody with a life has pretty much stopped wasting time posting. 

You resemble a FB friend who assuredly has a life - or does a good job impersonating someone who does. (Me on the other hand... ...not so sure...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 5:55 PM, sosoomii said:

LP are on record as saying they did not refuse an inspection, but they did ask that the ILCA inspector was accompanied by someone from WS.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 1:01 AM, JimC said:

That *is* refusing an inspection.

If you suspect that the authority taking an inspection might not be impartial, asking for someone 'from the higher up' to oversee the process sounds like a reasonable request.

P.S. I'm not a fan of Rastegar, but transparency and impartiality should come first.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ojfd said:

asking for someone 'from the higher up'

Think through it. World sailing are not only not 'higher up', they are not party to the contract between ILCA and LPE at all, and I suspect they aren't even supposed to have access to the construction manual, let alone be expert in it. And conventionally a contract is a contract, you aren't allowed to unilaterally add extra conditions to it. And one might note that transparency and impartiality have never formed any part of the Laser situation.The only reason most of us have any idea what was in various contracts has been what's been published in court documents. Traditionally its all been a swan situation where we haven't known what's going on under the water.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 5:30 PM, tillerman said:

PSA do seem to be moving swiftly to establish themselves as the dominant supplier of "Lasers" in the former territories of LaserPerformance.

When any new builders get round to being approved, will they be able to compete against the market dominance of PSA?

Maybe we will end up with what is effectively a Single Manufacturer One Design for the "Laser." Could be worse. Seems to work well in other classes.

This is true.  However, it takes 40 days for 1 container of 24 boats to get to the US from AUS.  Also, there's a bit more expense associated with those logistics.

If someone in NA steps in to build at a lower price then the PSA "monopoly" will be no more.  Assuming, that is, the new builder doesn't have any QC issues and people buy from them.  I'm thinking we're going to see some road reps for both PSA and whoever the new builder is to promote their product.  To me this will be great to see at events and even on a District level!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 5:14 PM, sosoomii said:

If you judge on actions rather than words the first sentence above is the complete opposite of the actual state of affairs.

Regardless of whether the old model or the new one results in lower costs, Rastegar payed good money to be the rightful owner of the tradename for the Laser (and employed many people) and the class association have pulled the rug out from under him (and presumably lost fabricators their livelihoods).  Doesn’t stop Rasty being a prick, but doesn’t put the CA in a good light either imho.  

He could be supplying again if he'd his S _ _ _ together and agree to the ILCA supplier rules.  My understanding is ILCA has continued to work with LPE and just a month ago they were very close to getting it worked out.  However, just because you sign a document doesn't mean you have to follow the rules which ultimately could lead us right back to the spot we found ourselves in much longer ago than March of 2019..... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ojfd said:

 

If you suspect that the authority taking an inspection might not be impartial, asking for someone 'from the higher up' to oversee the process sounds like a reasonable request.

 

Except for that whole contract thing, where you promise to do something in exchange for something else without any post-contract qualifications like 'I suspect they might not be impartial'.  It might be reasonable, and they can certainly ask, but no one has any reason to accomodate them, and any delay in allowing what they committed to is still a breach of contract.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic stalling tactic by Rasty.  I'm going to try appear to be reasonable by involving a third party when in reality I am weaseling out of my end of the contract.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Except for that whole contract thing, where you promise to do something in exchange for something else without any post-contract qualifications like 'I suspect they might not be impartial'.  It might be reasonable, and they can certainly ask, but no one has any reason to accomodate them, and any delay in allowing what they committed to is still a breach of contract.

 

Unless you have seen the terms and conditions of the contract you can not know that this is a post-contract qualification.  It is entirely plausible that the contract stipulates that the inspection shall be conducted by someone suitably qualified and experienced, and that LPE believed the ILCA rep did not match that description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

  It is entirely plausible 

 Might be plausible, but it ain't there.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 Might be plausible, but it ain't there.  

Are the contracts in the public domain or has someone leaked it to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

Unless you have seen the terms and conditions of the contract you can not know that this is a post-contract qualification.  It is entirely plausible that the contract stipulates that the inspection shall be conducted by someone suitably qualified and experienced, and that LPE believed the ILCA rep did not match that description.

Or they put someone from World Sailing on the ILCA board to also do  the inspection 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VWAP said:

Or they put someone from World Sailing on the ILCA board to also do  the inspection 

If i remember correctly (and no I'm not going to dig through my 5" stack of litigation documents from the previous lawsuits), the ILCA inspector has to be a WS-accredited measurer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

Are the contracts in the public domain or has someone leaked it to you?

Almost all lawsuit documents are public if you know where to find them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Almost all lawsuit documents are public if you know where to find them.

That doesn't answer the question ;)

Whatever, the Dinghy Show is only 6 weeks away and LPE have promised "interesting" news.  I shall certainly be pressing them for answers, might even film it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sosoomii said:

I shall certainly be pressing them for answers, might even film it.

Go for it.  Transparency is a very good thing.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 Might be plausible, but it ain't there.  

Sosoomii keeps trying all the LPE biased angles and keep coming up with goose eggs....  Looking forward to the boat show video.  However, it's been proven that just because LPE says it doesn't make it true....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

However, it's been proven that just because LPE says it doesn't make it true....

it's mostly been proven that if LPE says it, it probably isn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobbieB said:

Sosoomii keeps trying all the LPE biased angles and keep coming up with goose eggs....  Looking forward to the boat show video.  However, it's been proven that just because LPE says it doesn't make it true....

I’m actually less biased than most on here because I don’t have a Laser and don’t intend to get one. Partly, in fact, because I wouldn’t want to buy a boat from Rastegar.  

I am neutral in this and have heavily criticised the earlier joint ILCA/LPE move to remove the fundamental rule requiring Kirby’s consent, 


You, on the other hand, are a class rep and so demonstrably have a biased view. 
 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I fear this is the path ILCA have chosen to take. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

 I don’t have a Laser and don’t intend to get one.

neither do I

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

You, on the other hand, are a class rep and so demonstrably have a biased view. 

While, (of course) I want the class to succeed and I indeed voted "yes" for the proposed changes, (because I was in agreement with it being the right thing to do). I have also stated/and agreed that it would be the easiest path to get LPE re-instated and I would be just as fine with that as well.

However, it's becoming apparent LPE does not intend to play ball which I am also fine with as I find it hard to understand how they could suddenly fix all the issues NA and SA, (which is a few countries folks and NOT just the US) has been experiencing for years.

Also True, I also represent district 12 for NA-ILCA as the district secretary and have been privileged to accurate and REAL information that I have not shared, (ask asked). However, this information is currently coming to light a little bit more every week now.

For someone such as yourself, (having NEVER sailed the boat nor ever intend to) to take a position on this at all is sort of baffling to me?  I mean seriously why don't you just continue to "dance with the one that brung ya" and leave the hand wringing to the ones that actually have skin in the game?  If you're worried about this happening to your class then contact your class representatives asap.  Unless of course you sail PHRF, (or some other bastardized rating system) then you're just hosed anyway and I can understand the perpetual frustration. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t say I’d NEVER sailed or owned one, just that I don’t now and won’t in the future.  When you misrepresent what I say and make out that I am biased, whilst at the same time claiming to have pertinent information that you are withholding from your membership, it paints ILCA in a bad light.   

I actually don’t want to get into an argument with you because I admire your enthusiasm and efforts for the class.  The world would be a better place if everyone made the same efforts.   But that doesn’t mean I agree with ILCA’s actions on this issue.

I can honestly say that I’m not in the least bit concerned about this happening in my class - although the committee did recently put some rule changes to the class which were rejected.  And your attitude to handicap racing sucks.  You realise many Lasers race handicap?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

I didn’t say I’d NEVER sailed or owned one, just that I don’t now and won’t in the future.  (Kind of the same difference).  When you misrepresent what I say and make out that I am biased, (Most of your posts come across that way.  At the very least anti-ILCA)whilst at the same time claiming to have pertinent information that you are withholding from your membership, (I respect when people share something with me in confidence.  It's also above my pay grade to share. There's never been anything shared with me that was NOT posted to the membership) it paints ILCA in a bad light.   

I actually don’t want to get into an argument with you,(and here we are, but it's SA so I've come to expect it) because I admire your enthusiasm and efforts for the class.  The world would be a better place if everyone made the same efforts.(thank you)   But that doesn’t mean I agree with ILCA’s actions on this issue.(which is your right but I do get frustrated with those not involved at all with the class throwing rocks).

I can honestly say that I’m not in the least bit concerned about this happening in my class - although the committee did recently put some rule changes to the class which were rejected.  And your attitude to handicap racing sucks.  (sorry- I put you in a general category of PRHF complainers.  Glad to know you're not one of them.  I cut my teeth through many years of PHRF sailing and have never complained about a rating.  I just sail and most PHRF boats are far easier to drink beer on). You realise many Lasers race handicap? (Not really, but I've done it before and it was fun).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JimC said:

Think through it. World sailing are not only not 'higher up', they are not party to the contract between ILCA and LPE at all, and I suspect they aren't even supposed to have access to the construction manual, let alone be expert in it. And conventionally a contract is a contract, you aren't allowed to unilaterally add extra conditions to it. And one might note that transparency and impartiality have never formed any part of the Laser situation.The only reason most of us have any idea what was in various contracts has been what's been published in court documents. Traditionally its all been a swan situation where we haven't known what's going on under the water.

Just for the sake of accuracy:

  • World sailing was a party to the contract between ILCA and LPE.   The original contract had four parties :  World sailing, ILCA, BKI and the trademark owners (aka the builders).  The contract governed (among other things), certain rules about how rights (builder, designer, trademark etc) could be assigned and how the construction manual was controlled.  World Sailing also signed the "builder contracts", signifying its approval of the appointment by BKI and the trademark owner of a builder. The ILCA were not a party to those original builder contracts. Based on comments from ILCA, they will be a party to builder contracts going forward, but so will the ILCA who retain the right to approve or disapprove builders 
  • World sailing not only have access to the construction manual, they also have a measure of control over the construction manual...in that any change to the construction manual has to be approved by WS. 

Hope that helps the discussion.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 10:10 AM, JimC said:

But the superficial appearance is that he repeatedly pulled the rug under himself.  The builders were protected by a mesh of contracts that made it almost impossible to dislodge a builder who was fulfilling their contractual obligations.  Largely correct.  They were especially well protected because the three builders were also the three trademark owners.  But there was one fatal flaw in the mesh of contracts.  The contracts effectively established a process whereby a builder was approved by 3 parties; The trademark owner, the BKI rights owner and WS. The contracts did not envisage a situation where one of the builders also became the BKI rights owner.  Thus a stalemate could be created where the builder appointed by the trademark owner was not approved by the BKI rights owner and the builder approved by the BKI rights owner was not approved by the trademark owner.

In hindsight the flaw should have been obvious because it was inevitable that BK was not going to be around for ever.

First LPE appears to have broken their contractual obligations to the design owners by ceasing to pay the not especially huge builder's royalty, but they were given a pass on that by firstly ILCA making the fundamental rule change in their favour, and secondly by the US legal system apparently making the contracts effectively unenforceable. Incorrect according to the filings. LPE did not terminate the contract.  BKI terminated the contract (while under the new ownership of the owners of Global sailing and owners of PSA)  . LP ceased paying the so called royalty because Global Sailing told them the contract had been terminated.  There was some  interesting legal to and fro as to whether BKI could reinstate the royalty payments by selling BKI back to Bruce Kirby but that was academic because (I) The court decided that sale was a smoke screen and Global sailing still controlled BKI and (ii) Bruce Kirby reaffirmed the decision of BKI to terminate its right to receive payment from LPE.  These payments were not royalty payments because there are no Laser design rights, the payments were simply a contractual payment.  BKI was analogous to a service provider. The service they provided was saying "I approve this builder as a good boat builder". When they stopped providing that service, then they stopped being paid for that service.,   In hindsight GS made a terrible mistake in terminating that contract. Allegedly they were trying to put pressure on LP to persuade LP to either buy PSA or give PSA a larger territory. 

Secondly LPE appears to have broken their contractual obligations to ILCA by refusing the not very onerous factory inspections, which have ILCA very little choice but to pull the plug. The Laser is nothing if its not identical boats. Correct. The WS contract (and its successor contracts) specifies inspection by ILCA . ILCA was entitled to inspect the manufacturing facility and LP were required to facilitate the inspection. LP appears to have been in breach of contract. Its not clear if it was a fundamental breach and its not clear to me if ILCA allowed LP a reasonable opportunity to rectify the breach.   It was a dumb move by LP.  LP would have to really demonstrate that they unambiguously offered to rectify the breach if they want to reassert the contract....but Rastegaar is very proud and Im not sure if his offer to allow subsequently the inspection was as unreserved as it needs to be.

This is what's so mystifying about the whole thing. LPE may well have decided that everyone was out to get them, but surely if you think everyone is out to get you the one thing you do is to make sure that the other guys are the ones to break the contracts. Unfortunately everyone is so addicted to spin and fake history that we'll surely never know what the motivation was.
 

Again.......just for the sake of accuracy.

(with a little informed speculation thrown in to sweeten the pot)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In as much as there is no merit arguing the difference between "signatory" and "party" in contract law, there is little to be gained by pushing what is in my view erroneous notion that ILCA was not a party - to contracts no longer used. Even for the sake of perceived accuracy.

Equally, there is no merit in arguing that the contracts were flawed because BK wasn't going to be around forever. I could argue that the contracts prescribed how some of the parties to the contract, including BK, could sell - but again, these are for contracts no longer used so it does not matter.

Same for restating controversial positions of old arguments, because in so doing, intended or not, it has the potential to gaslight the conversation - even in the name of perceived accuracy.

What I am saying is that the old contracts no longer matter to the class.

What matters is that the holders of the contracted building rights no longer appear to be in dispute, with the exception of LaserPerformance, who for reasons which are unclear and not public has yet to agree to the new builder's contract.

The class has moved forward and its great that there are several new builders who are coming on line. There are hurdles yet to cross, they must build following the construction manual to the letter - and as always (since the 1970s), pass the class measurer's eye.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 10:10 AM, JimC said:

But the superficial appearance is that he repeatedly pulled the rug under himself.  The builders were protected by a mesh of contracts that made it almost impossible to dislodge a builder who was fulfilling their contractual obligations.

This is what's so mystifying about the whole thing. LPE may well have decided that everyone was out to get them, but surely if you think everyone is out to get you the one thing you do is to make sure that the other guys are the ones to break the contracts. Unfortunately everyone is so addicted to spin and fake history that we'll surely never know what the motivation was.

 

Jim.......I dont want to appear to be disagreeing with your conclusion.  I happen to agree with you in your overall conclusion.

I think Rastegaar did pull the rug from under himself.   But I dont think the rug was "contractual"

Ultimately, the reason that LP find themselves in this position is not because they didnt finesse their legal position ...its because they gave such a piss poor service to their customers, especially in the US.......and they treated their most important customer relationship conduit (the class association) so poorly.

The reality in business is that if your deliver a shit service product with a shitty attitude, then the best legal position in the world is not going to save your business.

All the employees I have ever met at LP have been nice people, dedicated to the sport and motivated by caring for customers......so I have formed the biased opinion that the problems (supply, bad relations with class association etc) in this small business stem entirely from the very top, the owner, Rastegaar.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

...

Now that is some word salad

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Now that is some word salad

202070586_newzealandbrownricesalad.jpg.928c3fa2a0ba4369d28ad8170c9e0ad6.jpg

  • Cook rice in water according to package directions. Drain and cool.
  • Peel kiwifruit and cut into 1/4" thick slices. Cut slices in half to form semi circles.
  • Core and dice apple into 1/2" cubes.
  • Toss together rice, kiwifruit, apple, celery, red pepper strips, walnuts, green onions and parsley in salad bowl.
  • Mix together vinegar and oil. Drizzle over salad.
  • Toss to mix well.
  • Cover and refrigerate 1-2 hours, to allow flavors to blend, before serving.
  • Makes 6 servings.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IPLore said:

202070586_newzealandbrownricesalad.jpg.928c3fa2a0ba4369d28ad8170c9e0ad6.jpg

  • Cook rice in water according to package directions. Drain and cool.
  • Peel kiwifruit and cut into 1/4" thick slices. Cut slices in half to form semi circles.
  • Core and dice apple into 1/2" cubes.
  • Toss together rice, kiwifruit, apple, celery, red pepper strips, walnuts, green onions and parsley in salad bowl.
  • Mix together vinegar and oil. Drizzle over salad.
  • Toss to mix well.
  • Cover and refrigerate 1-2 hours, to allow flavors to blend, before serving.
  • Makes 6 servings.

 

 

A kiwifruit salad? Really? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 6:24 PM, tillerman said:

 ILCA is pleased to announce that, under the terms of the new builder approval procedure, seven manufacturers will now be offered provisional licenses to move forward in the builder application process. The provisional approvals come after the formal builder applications were reviewed by the evaluation panel appointed by ILCA, which is comprised of both class representatives and independent industry experts. Each builder applicant is now subject to a further technical review to ensure compliance with the established class one-design principles. The new manufacturers will now be required to obtain certified molds and tooling from ILCA and produce a number of pre-production boats to verify the ability to manufacturer boats to the strict specifications and tolerances of the building manual and the class rules. 

See that @Wess ?   SEVEN new builders... potentially.

 

LOL, potentially.  I am still waiting for the that NA Laser builder that they said was coming "soon" almost a year ago. And then it was was going to be fully up to speed shipping boats "2-6 months from August" 2019.  Still nothing but talk.  Well talk and fees pushed onto non members to covered their expenses. 

#allhatandnocattleisilca

15 hours ago, IPLore said:

Ultimately, the reason that LP find themselves in this position is not because they didnt finesse their legal position ...its because they gave such a piss poor service to their customers...

The reality in business is that if your deliver a shit service product with a shitty attitude, then the best legal position in the world is not going to save your business.

All the employees I have ever met at LP have been nice people, dedicated to the sport and motivated by caring for customers......so I have formed the biased opinion that the problems (supply, bad relations with class association etc) in this small business stem entirely from the very top, the owner, Rastegaar.

IPL is back and truer words were never spoken.  So wish somebody could strap Bill Crane to a chair and pump him full of truth serum.  Would be telling to hear his perspective.  Way back in this thread somebody indicated that he was supportive of the Rasty position even privately.  That just don't make sense but stranger things have happened I guess.

15 hours ago, IPLore said:

202070586_newzealandbrownricesalad.jpg.928c3fa2a0ba4369d28ad8170c9e0ad6.jpg

  • Cook rice in water according to package directions. Drain and cool.
  • Peel kiwifruit and cut into 1/4" thick slices. Cut slices in half to form semi circles.
  • Core and dice apple into 1/2" cubes.
  • Toss together rice, kiwifruit, apple, celery, red pepper strips, walnuts, green onions and parsley in salad bowl.
  • Mix together vinegar and oil. Drizzle over salad.
  • Toss to mix well.
  • Cover and refrigerate 1-2 hours, to allow flavors to blend, before serving.
  • Makes 6 servings.

 

 

Kiwifruit.  OMG that is funny. Do you make it in a lawn mower?

I go away for a long weekend and you folks have been busy!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

I go away for a long weekend and you folks have been busy!

When do you go away for a longer period? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bill4 said:

When do you go away for a longer period? 

When Robbie and Tracey pay up on the rum bet. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Wess said:

When Robbie and Tracey pay up on the rum bet. :P

You're back! It was too quiet here yesterday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, tillerman said:

A kiwifruit salad? Really? 

The title of the recipe is "New Zealand Brown Rice Salad".  https://www.food.com/recipe/new-zealand-brown-rice-salad-203597

As you can see from the image, the rice is actually white.   When a Kiwi asserts that the ILCA were a party (or even a 'signatory") to the original builders agreement, he doesn't mean for you to take him literally that the rice is actually brown.  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

So wish somebody could strap Bill Crane to a chair and pump him full of truth serum.  Would be telling to hear his perspective.  Way back in this thread somebody indicated that he was supportive of the Rasty position even privately. 

Bill Crane is a straight up guy who has devoted a good chunk of his professional management career to sailing.  According to his friends, it was a job (he had serious management credentials prior to LP) and a passion (the same friends tell me that he loves sailing and can be seen on any given weekend in the Summer racing a Sonar or a Sunfish).

They tell me that he wanted to enable as many people to sail at an affordable price as possible. That his goals were (1) Satisfied Customers (2) Happy Employees and (3) Profits flow from 1 and 2.

He is also, apparently the consummate professional.  Apparently all that he will say about his departure from LP is that he tendered his resignation and it was accepted.   If asked if we  can assume that a CEO in his 50's does not quit a well paid job unless he disagrees with the direction the owner is taking , he will push back and say that the only conclusion you can draw is that he tendered his resignation and it was accepted. 

So yeah.....you would need the truth serum to get the back story from Mr. Crane.

I wonder if he takes ginger beer or coke with his truth serum? :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, IPLore said:

The title of the recipe is "New Zealand Brown Rice Salad".  https://www.food.com/recipe/new-zealand-brown-rice-salad-203597

As you can see from the image, the rice is actually white.   When a Kiwi asserts that the ILCA were a party (or even a 'signatory") to the original builders agreement, he doesn't mean for you to take him literally that the rice is actually brown.  :)

 

Another name for kiwifruit is Chinese gooseberry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RobbieB said:

You're back! It was too quiet here yesterday.

LOL; I missed you too.  Was supposed to have been out on a 3 day winter shakedown cruise on the tri.  Boys trip.  Was blowing stink and colder than sh*t so would have made for the perfect shakedown of all the lightning strike repairs.  Alas the wife and I had to plan and attend a funeral. 

1 hour ago, IPLore said:

Bill Crane is a straight up guy who has devoted a good chunk of his professional management career to sailing.  According to his friends, it was a job (he had serious management credentials prior to LP) and a passion (the same friends tell me that he loves sailing and can be seen on any given weekend in the Summer racing a Sonar or a Sunfish).

They tell me that he wanted to enable as many people to sail at an affordable price as possible. That his goals were (1) Satisfied Customers (2) Happy Employees and (3) Profits flow from 1 and 2.

He is also, apparently the consummate professional.  Apparently all that he will say about his departure from LP is that he tendered his resignation and it was accepted.   If asked if we  can assume that a CEO in his 50's does not quit a well paid job unless he disagrees with the direction the owner is taking , he will push back and say that the only conclusion you can draw is that he tendered his resignation and it was accepted. 

So yeah.....you would need the truth serum to get the back story from Mr. Crane.

I wonder if he takes ginger beer or coke with his truth serum? :)

We have both but guessing he is more of a ginger beer kinda guy.  I really don't know what to think.  Way back in the end of May, Tiller had posted how Crane (who had long ago left LPE) was actively on-line and "liking" EurILCA positions and posts.  He had also set up Gouv and Rasty in that call.  And all that jived with what some mutual friends had shared.  Can't imagine why he would be pro-LPE and EurILCA and opposed to PSA but there were certainly some breadcrumbs to suggest he was.  The fruit salad used to accuse me of being Bill Crane and even I can't guess why he might be aligned with the LPE position absent his still holding some huge equity share.  Maybe we can convince Robbie and Tracy to send the rum they owe me, to Bill and he has to drink it all while on line and posting...

Que some sock to create a BCrane account (will not be me I swear)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IPLore said:

The title of the recipe is "New Zealand Brown Rice Salad".  https://www.food.com/recipe/new-zealand-brown-rice-salad-203597

As you can see from the image, the rice is actually white.   When a Kiwi asserts that the ILCA were a party (or even a 'signatory") to the original builders agreement, he doesn't mean for you to take him literally that the rice is actually brown.  :)

At no time have I claimed that the ILCA were signatories to the Laser old builder's agreement.

  • The ILCA were not signitories to the old builder's contract.
  • The party referred to in clause 8.1c in the old builder's contract was ILCA. 

Here's clause 8.1:

image.png.3e920c7143fb34fb585d5f37161f9117.png

In the same way, World Sailing was not a signatory to the old builder's contracts. So when IPLore said:

21 hours ago, IPLore said:

World sailing was a party to the contract between ILCA and LPE.

...in my view he was correct, in exactly the same way that the ILCA were a party to the contract.

To be clear, here are the signatures for one of the builder's contract dated 31 March 1989.

image.png.68c5e7f696293be148f45feb7fdf3d5b.png

World Sailing (IYRU) and the ILCA were not signatories, however were definitely parties named, had obligations and recipients of benefits in the old builder contracts. They were contractually bound through the IYRU agreement which formed a part of the old builder's contract. Here's where the old builder's contract explicitly made that so:

image.png.2c850184f769745e0e53abf8278fac51.png

A party (dictionary meaning) an identifiable entity or individual. We are examining the the meaning of an expression "party to the contract", which has a special legal meaning.

In this case, the ILCA and IYRU (World Sailing) were not simply parties, or third party beneficiaries. They were bound with obligations and received benefits from the old builder contracts. As a consequence, both ILCA and IYRU (World Sailing) were parties to the old builder's contracts, but not signatories. These obligations and benefits would not exist without the old builder's contracts.

---

This is unlikely to clear up anything, because it is more likely that IPLore is not here to impart legal clarity, rather has some other purpose which involves misinforming and trolling.

---

What's important is that these old contracts no longer matter to the class.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

At no time have I claimed that the ILCA were signatories to the Laser old builder's agreement.

  • The ILCA were not signitories to the old builder's contract.
  • The party referred to in clause 8.1c in the old builder's contract was ILCA. 

Here's clause 8.1:

image.png.3e920c7143fb34fb585d5f37161f9117.png

In the same way, World Sailing was not a signatory to the old builder's contracts. So when IPLore said:

...in my view he was correct, in exactly the same way that the ILCA were a party to the contract.

To be clear, here are the signatures for one of the builder's contract dated 31 March 1989.

image.png.68c5e7f696293be148f45feb7fdf3d5b.png

World Sailing (IYRU) and the ILCA were not signatories, however were definitely parties named, had obligations and recipients of benefits in the old builder contracts. They were contractually bound through the IYRU agreement which formed a part of the old builder's contract. Here's where the old builder's contract explicitly made that so:

image.png.2c850184f769745e0e53abf8278fac51.png

A party (dictionary meaning) an identifiable entity or individual. We are examining the the meaning of an expression "party to the contract", which has a special legal meaning.

In this case, the ILCA and IYRU (World Sailing) were not simply parties, or third party beneficiaries. They were bound with obligations and received benefits from the old builder contracts. As a consequence, both ILCA and IYRU (World Sailing) were parties to the old builder's contracts, but not signatories. These obligations and benefits would not exist without the old builder's contracts.

---

This is unlikely to clear up anything, because it is more likely that IPLore is not here to impart legal clarity, rather has some other purpose which involves misinforming and trolling.

---

What's important is that these old contracts no longer matter to the class.

So what color is the rice?

 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

 

This is unlikely to clear up anything, because it is more likely that IPLore is not here to impart legal clarity, rather has some other purpose which involves misinforming and trolling.

IP Lore has been very factual and accurate in his legal analyses and he clearly went through the trouble of downloading and reviewing many of the available documents.  You just spit out another big pile of salad to agree with him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

IP Lore has been very factual and accurate in his legal analyses and he clearly went through the trouble of downloading and reviewing many of the available documents.  You just spit out another big pile of salad to agree with him.

That's disappointing to hear you say that Clean. 

Here's an example of misinformation from IPLore:

23 hours ago, IPLore said:

World sailing was a party to the contract between ILCA and LPE.   The original contract had four parties :  World sailing, ILCA, BKI and the trademark owners (aka the builders).  The contract governed (among other things), certain rules about how rights (builder, designer, trademark etc) could be assigned and how the construction manual was controlled.  World Sailing also signed the "builder contracts", signifying its approval of the appointment by BKI and the trademark owner of a builder. The ILCA were not a party to those original builder contracts. Based on comments from ILCA, they will be a party to builder contracts going forward, but so will the ILCA who retain the right to approve or disapprove builders 

According to IPLore, World Sailing was a party and ILCA weren't?

So according to IPLore, different definitions apply to different parties. Whether or not anyone considers ILCA or World Sailing to be parties to the old builder's contract, the statement above by IPLore is factually deficient.

I have shown above that both were not signatories, and that both had obligations and benefits from these contracts.

I'm unclear what you say I am agreeing to. The notion that I am agreeing to this statement by IPLore is false.

---

Bottom line, the old contracts no longer matter to the Laser class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

That's disappointing to hear you say that Clean. 

Here's an example of misinformation from IPLore:

According to IPLore, World Sailing was a party and ILCA weren't?

So according to IPLore, different definitions apply to different parties. Whether or not anyone considers ILCA or World Sailing to be parties to the old builder's contract, the statement above by IPLore is factually deficient.

I have shown above that both were not signatories, and that both had obligations and benefits from these contracts.

I'm unclear what you say I am agreeing to. The notion that I am agreeing to this statement by IPLore is false.

---

Bottom line, the old contracts no longer matter to the Laser class.

Yes, I agree. Old contracts don't matter. But is the rice white or brown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, IPLore said:

World Sailing also signed the "builder contracts", signifying its approval of the appointment by BKI and the trademark owner of a builder.

To be fair, I used old contracts. The ones which were signed by LPE were not signed by World Sailing. Here's the signatures:

image.png.a7732d7f7eef1f29c8702896b0cf3fbf.png

What IPLore is putting forward is false. LaserPerformance (then known as Performance Sailcraft Europe Limited) did not sign agreements.

The old contracts no longer matter to the Laser class.

No matter what the motivation that IPLore has to make such a post, in the end intended or not, IPLore has promoted himself as someone who posts false information.

PS: I don't eat rice, nor care to answer any rice related questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Quote

 

Bruce Hudson (aka Gantt) wrote in the Laser Torch thread.
 
I am satisfied that the above ILCA statement is false.
 
ILCA is a party to Kirby Agreements
ILCA Statement: "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc.  The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements."
 
IPLore wrote:
Quote

1. The ILCA was not party to the builders contract.

Specifically, at the time of the vote, the contract at issue was the builders contract between LPE and Bruce Kirby Inc.

(i) They are not party to the contract. The contract clearly states who are the parties to the contract and ILCA is not a party. Referencing another contract or document does not make ILCA a party to the builders contract. If the builder and BKI had decided to incorporate an article from Tillerman's proper course blog, it would not make Tillerman a party to the contract.

(ii) FWIW, Gantt's statement that the Builders contracts "depend" on the 1983 ISAF agreement is also misguided. The contract commits the parties to seek to maintain international status but if the Laser had lost its international status, the contracts would still be valid. (In BK's favor...his builder contracts are not terminated solely because ISAF terminated the ISAF agreement with Kirby)

 

Bottom line...the ILCA was not party to the builders contract.

 
With the above, IPLore shows a weak understanding of the what "party" means in contract law, also a just as weak understanding of what a 'dependant contract' is.
 
Here is the exact clause which makes the Builder's License dependent on the ISAF Agreements:
"9.2 Licensee agrees to comply with and be bound by each of the terms and conditions of the IYRU Agreement to the same extent as if the Licensee was a party thereto."
This can be found in the builder's lisence on page 111 of the following PDF: https://www.docdroid.net/J1xCef9/kirby-first-amended-complaint-final1-with-appendices.pdf.html
 
Clause 9.2 above depends on the ISAF Agreement to make sense both legally and logically. The Builder's License Agreement is dependent on the ISAF Agreement.
 
Also for IPLore to be right, we must also believe his narrow definition of party to only mean signatory.
 
In law, the definition is far broader, with the term party referring to a recipient of a benefit of a contract or having gained certain rights or privileges - and there are additional legal uses.
 
Here's a clause from the ISAF Agreement:
Quote
13.2 In consideration of the services to be performed by the Association as herein set forth, there shall be paid to the Association by each Builder manufacturing the Laser class boat a fee of such amount as is established from time to time with the approval of the Association as such Builder and the said fee shall be at least equal to the Association's International subscription prevailing at the time. Such payments shall be computed monthly. Payment of all sums due shall be made by the Builder within 30 days from the end of the month with respect to all Laser class boats sold or otherwise disposed of during such month.
 
It's a good clause to cite as it shows a direct relationship between the builders and the ILCA because of the builder's contract and the ISAF Agreement. The above clause refers to services performed by the ILCA to the builders, and it is aligned with another clause where builders are required to furnish a report to the ILCA. The two agreements bind the builders and the ILCA together in every way a single contract would as if they were signitories.
 
Also included:
  • The ILCA is a beneficiary of the builder's license agreements, because it requires builder's to make payments to the ILCA.
  • The ILCA has the right under the Builder's License Agreements to conduct inspections at builder's premises.
  • The builder's have obligations to the ILCA, for example are required to furnish reports to the ILCA.

On top of that, we know that there are agreements between Kirby and PSA and PSJ - which were current as of the end of 2011.

 

The ILCA said in 2011: "The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements." In consideration to "any", the agreements with PSA and PSJ must be included.


 

Rehashing history. Bruce Hudson, who was known on SA as Gantt at the time, offended some by accusing Jeff Martin specifically and the ILCA of lying or misleading class association members in 2013 because the ILCA said it was not a party to the builders contracts between BKI and the builders, and did not know the content of those contracts. 

Naturally, ILCA did not want to be responsible for enforcing contracts that they were not a party to and did not have access to.  The parties of that contract were entitled to sue each other in court.....they were not entitled IMO to ask the ILCA to enforce those contracts. 

Bruce argued that the ILCA was a party to the so-called Kirby Agreements/ Builders Agreements, and that Jeff Martin knew the contents of those contracts and was lying or misleading.

In order to progress the discussion, I explained as carefully and tactfully as I knew how , that in fact the ILCA were not a party to the so-called "Kirby Agreements" or "Builder Agreements".  

This led to Bruce accusing me of being a liar which was rather vexing.....and in a fit of exasperation I confess that I posted that my lawnmower had a better understanding of contract law than Gantt. In my defense, I was mowing my lawn that afternoon, with my nice new sit down mower which was doing a better job with my lawn than Gantt was doing in explaining contract law.  I meant it as riposte rather than a lasting insult.

Nevertheless, it has been a recurring theme of Bruce's that the ILCA were a legal party to the original Kirby agreements, which has spread confusion in the discussion .

I retired after a long career on December 31st and my various non-competes expire at the end of June.  Clean, however, is a practicing attorney who does a lot of contract law. I will let him enjoy explaining to Bruce the obligations and definition of a party to a contract. I tried!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IPLore said:
 

I retired after a long career on December 31st 

Congratulations, counselor!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, IPLore said:
 

Rehashing history. Bruce Hudson, who was known on SA as Gantt at the time, offended some by accusing Jeff Martin specifically and the ILCA of lying or misleading class association members in 2013 because the ILCA said it was not a party to the builders contracts between BKI and the builders, and did not know the content of those contracts. 

Naturally, ILCA did not want to be responsible for enforcing contracts that they were not a party to and did not have access to.  The parties of that contract were entitled to sue each other in court.....they were not entitled IMO to ask the ILCA to enforce those contr