Wess

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

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

 

I comply with NZ law. Legal services in relation to criminal law and court proceedings is one thing, contract law in NZ is another. It is common practice and entirely legal to provide assistance with contracts, disclaimers, interpreting the Fair Trading Act and other legal services.

Do you tell your clients that?

Share this post


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

funny that you haven't admitted yours

That misrepresents my position Clean. My copy ends on page 16, which appears to be different from IPLore's. I've asked for a copy so I can attempt to verify.

Previously, I've admitted making mistakes. IPLore has yet to, though has made mistakes. He spoke about why he does not admit to mistakes back in 2016. (From memory).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good.

I comply with NZ law. Legal services in relation to criminal law and court proceedings is one thing, contract law in NZ is another. It is common practice and entirely legal to provide assistance with contracts, disclaimers, interpreting the Fair Trading Act and other legal services. This in part was discussed a couple years ago by the NZ Law Society. (Link to article here)

Based on my reading of that discussion (which is about providing standard templates and not at all about personal services) and the existing NZ precedent, you most assuredly cannot provide assistance with contracts, disclaimers, interpreting the Fair Trading Act and other legal services without holding a current practising certificate.  

If a friend told me what you just wrote, I would counsel him to cease immediately and never speak of it again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The obligations included inspections.

The following clause is at the heart of our disagreement: (You are leaping about between different agreements. But no problem....let's now look at the priginal North American Agreement between Kirby and PY boats (subsequently dba Vanguard)

 

We agree that the ILCA is a signatory and a party to the IYRU agreement. Yes

The IYRU agreement forms part of the Builder's agreement, agreed? The licensee (the builder) agrees to comply with the terms of the IYRU agreement.  The trademark owner and BKI are required to incorporate those terms in any licensing agreement to a licensee by the terms of IYRU agreement. The principle of incorporation does not make a party of Contract A a party to Contract B, simply because Contract B incorporates the terms of Contract A.

As a signatory of the IYRU agreement, ILCA have obligations and benefits, agreed? Yes. Those obligations and benefits as you call them (we call them "consideration" in the legal trade) were created by the IYRU agreement. The ILCA was a party to the IYRU agreement.

Part of the IYRU agreement prescribed content for the builder's agreement, agreed? (Example clauses of the IYRU agreement include 9.2, 9.3, 10, 13.21, 13.2 etc.) Yes and Clause 7. 

The IYRU agreement forms a part of the builder's agreement, agreed?  See above.

Here's clause 7 of the IYRU agreement.Oh good...you saw that.



 

2 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

 

By signing the builder's contract, the builder is obligated to allow the Chief Measurer of ILCA inspections, agreed?   Yes. This obligation is created by the IYRU agreement Clause 7. 

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?

Share this post


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

By signing the builder's contract, the builder is obligated to allow the Chief Measurer of ILCA inspections, agreed?   Yes. This obligation is created by the IYRU agreement Clause 7. 

Generally, would you (IPLore) describe an entity or individual who has a contracted obligation as a "party".

If not, please advise what word you would use to describe that entity or individual.

Share this post


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

 

Generally, would you (IPLore) describe an entity or individual who has a contracted obligation as a "party".

If not, please advise what word you would use to describe that entity or individual.

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.!!!!!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.!!!!!

I confirm that IPLore is unwilling or unable to answer my question.

---

Here it is again:

 

1 hour ago, IPLore said:

By signing the builder's contract, the builder is obligated to allow the Chief Measurer of ILCA inspections, agreed?   Yes. This obligation is created by the IYRU agreement Clause 7

 

1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Generally, would you (IPLore) describe an entity or individual who has a contracted obligation as a "party"?

If not, please advise what word you would use to describe that entity or individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geeze. This is even worse than watching the impeachment trial.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Based on my reading of that discussion (which is about providing standard templates and not at all about personal services) and the existing NZ precedent, you most assuredly cannot provide assistance with contracts, disclaimers, interpreting the Fair Trading Act and other legal services without holding a current practising certificate.  

If a friend told me what you just wrote, I would counsel him to cease immediately and never speak of it again.

This is a small, obscure, news item right now in NZ, as we are discussing legislation in relation to unfair contract terms.

The Employments Contract Act of 1991 does not limit the drafting of agreements to be completed by lawyers who hold a current practicing certificate.

When legal services are required, I have hired lawyers. The drafting of agreements, disclaimers, compliance or copyright policy for a multitude of business applications all require input outside of legal council. Interpreting the Fair Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act is completed at a strategic level, with practical implications for marketing collateral, again advice is sought and given. Accountants give legal advice. There are considerable grey areas, for example, with yesterday's NDA, I followed practice which I developed, and which was signed off by a lawyer a few years back. I would welcome clarity for what is usual business practice, is actually in breech of any law.

Share this post


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

Geeze. This is even worse than watching the impeachment trial.

Since Condaleezza left politics mentions of Rice are rare. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Since Condaleezza left politics mentions of Rice are rare. :) 

Susan Rice (US ambassador to the UN and National Security Advisor in the Obama administration) is seen more often on the American cable TV news channels than Condaleeezza Rice these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn; old old news but still there is some pretty funny stuff in the last page or so. 

In the event they need a lawyer, ILCA should take some of those ill gotten fees from non members and hire IPL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Damn; old old news but still there is some pretty funny stuff in the last page or so. 

In the event they need a lawyer, ILCA should take some of those ill gotten fees from non members and hire IPL.

We all need some rum after sorting through that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is a small, obscure, news item right now in NZ, as we are discussing legislation in relation to unfair contract terms.

The Employments Contract Act of 1991 does not limit the drafting of agreements to be completed by lawyers who hold a current practicing certificate.

When legal services are required, I have hired lawyers. The drafting of agreements, disclaimers, compliance or copyright policy for a multitude of business applications all require input outside of legal council. Interpreting the Fair Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act is completed at a strategic level, with practical implications for marketing collateral, again advice is sought and given. Accountants give legal advice. There are considerable grey areas, for example, with yesterday's NDA, I followed practice which I developed, and which was signed off by a lawyer a few years back. I would welcome clarity for what is usual business practice, is actually in breech of any law.

Can you imagine what this post would have looked like before spell check?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

This is a small, obscure, news item right now in NZ, as we are discussing legislation in relation to unfair contract terms.

The Employments Contract Act of 1991 does not limit the drafting of agreements to be completed by lawyers who hold a current practicing certificate.

When legal services are required, I have hired lawyers. The drafting of agreements, disclaimers, compliance or copyright policy for a multitude of business applications all require input outside of legal council. Interpreting the Fair Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act is completed at a strategic level, with practical implications for marketing collateral, again advice is sought and given. Accountants give legal advice. There are considerable grey areas, for example, with yesterday's NDA, I followed practice which I developed, and which was signed off by a lawyer a few years back. I would welcome clarity for what is usual business practice, is actually in breech of any law.

If you are interpreting contracts or advising others on their legal rights and obligations, you are practicing law.  If you are doing it for a client without the supervision of a certificated lawyer, you are violating the LCA.  I haven't read enough of the statute to know whether criminal liability attaches.  

If you are simply forwarding document templates of general applicability to your clients without comment, that is legal.  If you are doing it for your own affairs, it's legal. If you are doing it for free, it's more of a grey area. Possibly no criminal liability but you'd still be liable for any damages someone suffered in reliance on a legal document you drafted or advice you provided. I think.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I AM NOT A CERTIFIED LAWYER IN NEW ZEALAND.  ANYONE RELYING ON MY STATEMENTS TO MAKE ANY DECISION WHATSOEVER IS A FUCKING IDIOT AND DESERVES WHATEVER THEY GET.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Wess said:

 

In the event they need a lawyer, ILCA should take some of those ill gotten fees from non members and hire IPL.

Bruce's legal services are likely to be way cheaper

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Can you imagine what this post would have looked like before spell check?

 

at least he uses it!

Share this post


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

Bruce's legal services are likely to be way cheaper

Unlikely. IPL is only a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, torrid said:

We all need some rum after sorting through that.

Hey, don't be giving away my rum!  Despite Robbie's protests, endless stalling, and pettifogging (shamelessly stolen from Tiller) I won that rum fair and square! 

Share this post


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

If you are interpreting contracts or advising others on their legal rights and obligations, you are practicing law.  If you are doing it for a client without the supervision of a certificated lawyer, you are violating the LCA.  I haven't read enough of the statute to know whether criminal liability attaches.  

If you are simply forwarding document templates of general applicability to your clients without comment, that is legal.  If you are doing it for your own affairs, it's legal. If you are doing it for free, it's more of a grey area. Possibly no criminal liability but you'd still be liable for any damages someone suffered in reliance on a legal document you drafted or advice you provided. 

Thank you. In your view (re doing it for your own affairs) is there a difference between:

  • An employee
  • An owner 
  • A contractor

Share this post


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

Thank you. In your view (re doing it for your own affairs) is there a difference between:

  • An employee
  • An owner 
  • A contractor

the question is whether it is 'the practise of law for hire'.  Another words if someone is paying you a fee or salary and part of your duties including drafting, interpreting, counseling, or advising on their rights, obligations, or other legal responsibilities, or the legal repercussions of certain actions, you must have a certificate. 

 

Share this post


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

at least he uses it!

"breech of law"

"legal council"

Are we a pear of idiots for trying to explain the lore?

Share this post


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

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I AM NOT ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW  CERTIFIED LAWYER IN ............  ANYONE RELYING ON MY STATEMENTS TO MAKE ANY DECISION WHATSOEVER IS A FUCKING IDIOT AND DESERVES WHATEVER THEY GET.

 

Fantastic disclaimer. May I use it?

Share this post


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

"breech of law"

"legal council"

Are we a pear of idiots for trying to explain the lore?

I saw, but have a great deal of compassion for the bad spellers who spell check screws over by bad corrections.  Now if he randomly capitalized words I'd have ZERO sympathy.  We all have our triggers.

Share this post


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

Damn; old old news but still there is some pretty funny stuff in the last page or so. 

In the event they need a lawyer, ILCA should take some of those ill gotten fees from non members and hire IPL.

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"

:)

Share this post


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

Perpetual worldwide license hereby granted.  

Would it be nitpicking of me to observe that you can't do that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I saw, but have a great deal of compassion for the bad spellers who spell check screws over by bad corrections.  Now if he randomly capitalized words I'd have ZERO sympathy.  We all have our triggers.

You're KILLING me.

Share this post


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

the question is whether it is 'the practise of law for hire'.  Another words if someone is paying you a fee or salary and part of your duties including drafting, interpreting, counseling, or advising on their rights, obligations, or other legal responsibilities, or the legal repercussions of certain actions, you must have a certificate. 

Thanks again Clean.

Seems to me that compliance, especially with marcom and sales (especially smaller companies (which I usually avoid) complying with NZ's Consumer Guarantees Act - a weird piece of powerful legislation that I have never seen elsewhere) are the largest areas I see in need of improvement. (That includes NDAs, privacy policy, disclaimers and so forth - omission is common, and based on the (legal?) advice of not needing to worry about it!) 

I've mostly prepared drafts, though its the advise that comes with it that seems to be the least certain area. Seems like I should disclaim the crap out of that. (Or maybe I already have). More often than not, it isn't the lawyer's fault that there are issues. Having said that, the occasional lawyer doesn't do a good job. (I think the lawyer who did the NDA was approaching retirement, and used an out of date template - plus the counselling part was not properly performed, resulting in the form not being completed correctly.)

Share this post


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

Thanks again Clean.

Seems to me that compliance, especially with marcom and sales (especially smaller companies (which I usually avoid) complying with NZ's Consumer Guarantees Act - a weird piece of powerful legislation that I have never seen elsewhere) are the largest areas I see in need of improvement. (That includes NDAs, privacy policy, disclaimers and so forth - omission is common, and based on the (legal?) advice of not needing to worry about it!) 

I've mostly prepared drafts, though its the advise that comes with it that seems to be the least certain area. Seems like I should disclaim the crap out of that. (Or maybe I already have). More often than not, it isn't the lawyer's fault that there are issues. Having said that, the occasional lawyer doesn't do a good job. (I think the lawyer who did the NDA was approaching retirement, and used an out of date template - plus the counselling part was not properly performed, resulting in the form not being completed correctly.)

Plenty of bad lawyers out there just like everything else. 

But look Bruce in all seriousness, I don't know your business and I don't want to.  But you would be well served to read the LCA, specifically its definition of what constitutes 'practise of law' in NZ, and figure out a way to not do that.  Disclaimers by non-lawyers that they are 'not practising law' despite evidence to the contrary are not effective and may actually aggravate the violation.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2020 at 4:15 PM, 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? :)

According to https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/FC035491 Bill Crane was appointed a Director of Laser Performance LLC in August 2018, so it is not clear to me that he HAS departed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to Bill on the phone when I was finishing up my time as an employee of SA last spring.  He has indeed departed.  I imagine the next corporate filing will amend their Directorships.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

the question is whether it is 'the practise of law for hire'.  Another words if someone is paying you a fee or salary and part of your duties including drafting, interpreting, counseling, or advising on their rights, obligations, or other legal responsibilities, or the legal repercussions of certain actions, you must have a certificate. 

Thanks again Clean. Seems to me that it is compliance, especially with marcom and sales are the largest areas I see in need of improvement. (That includes NDAs, privacy policy, disclaimers and so forth - omission is common based on the (legal?) advice of not needing to worry about it!) "Legal Advice" can be very broad when you think about it.

For those who understand the possibility of legal ramifications, a lawyer is asked to give approval before release or agreement of anything formal. Informal advice is rife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the LP Facebook Page:

"We have exciting news to share! Say hello to the LaserPerformance team at the RYA Dinghy Show on February 29-March 1 to learn more about Laser League 

bit.ly/TheLaserLeague"

Is this the answer?  Create a new class association?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Looper said:

From the LP Facebook Page:

"We have exciting news to share! Say hello to the LaserPerformance team at the RYA Dinghy Show on February 29-March 1 to learn more about Laser League 

bit.ly/TheLaserLeague"

Is this the answer?  Create a new class association?

Good luck with that LP!  Also, answers the question regarding weather or not they'll work something out with ILCA to be back on the builder list.  I'm betting NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

 

Generally, would you (IPLore) describe an entity or individual who has a contracted obligation as a "party".

If not, please advise what word you would use to describe that entity or individual.

I replied
 

Quote

 

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. The ILCA was not a party to the Builder /Kirby Contracts.

 

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.  

 

21 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

What word would you use to describe ILCA's relationship with the builders agreement which they have obligations and benefits to? 

  • 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

 

 

 

Share this post


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

From the LP Facebook Page:

"We have exciting news to share! Say hello to the LaserPerformance team at the RYA Dinghy Show on February 29-March 1 to learn more about Laser League 

bit.ly/TheLaserLeague"

Is this the answer?  Create a new class association?

They tried that with the Sunfish.   It didnt work so well.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

They tried that with the Sunfish.   It didnt work so well.

 

Uh... hang on there. Been a while and I admit I am swamped this afternoon so not able to check.... but I thought LPE pretty much got everything they wanted from the Sunfish class and so all made nice again.  Now with Laser on the other hand LPE ain't gonna get what they want from the class and as others have said... good luck starting their own LPE Laser class.  well, its easy to start one and even schedule regattas... but much harder to succeed.  Would have to be on hell of a discount on the boat prices and something (Lord knows what) to get sailors to vote en-mass with their feet.  Didn't they pay attention to the vote?  Its not that they lost.  Its that so few sailors bothered to vote either way.  I canntt imagine folks would somehow get energized to make the shift.

And pretty sure there are more shoes to drop.

Share this post


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

From the LP Facebook Page:

"We have exciting news to share! Say hello to the LaserPerformance team at the RYA Dinghy Show on February 29-March 1 to learn more about Laser League 

bit.ly/TheLaserLeague"

Is this the answer?  Create a new class association?

 

 

Is it free membership like Torch Class?

Share this post


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

 

Is it free membership like Torch Class?

Will there be free hats?

Share this post


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

Good luck with that LP!  Also, answers the question regarding weather or not they'll work something out with ILCA to be back on the builder list.  I'm betting NOT.

Surely easier to start a new Class Association than start a new builder?  I pointed this out way back and ARoy was as casually dismissive as you.

Edited by sosoomii

Share this post


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

Surely easier to start a new Class Association than start a new builder?  I printed this out way back and ARoy was as casually dismissive as you.

Well.  One thing for certain.  We shall see.....

Share this post


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

Well.  One thing for certain.  We shall see.....

I am sure LP/LL will have the same amount of interest in NA as LP did over the past few years. So no impact here.

Share this post


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

Is this the answer?  Create a new class association?

Didn't they try something like that before?

Share this post


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

Surely easier to start a new Class Association than start a new builder? 

Easy to found a new class association. Rather harder to make one work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Easy to found a new class association. Rather harder to make one work.

True enough, but they can build membership much faster than ILCA can build boats.

It seems to me there is a real risk that this will end up like darts with multiple champions, which is ultimately unsustainable. Or boxing. Maybe Rastegar is the new Don King...

Maybe the threat of this will knock heads together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends on whether you are starting a new class (and association) or a new class association (for an existing class).  To me, what constitutes a class is ambiguous in WS rules, with Class and Class Association used interchangeably e.g. Classes which offer a high standard of international competitive sailing and satisfy the criteria set out in World Sailing Regulation 10 may be designated as a World Sailing Class Association. Perhaps one of the lawyers would like to give an opinion?

See also https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingClassEntryGuidelines2019-[24647].pdf - you need the endorsement of the Equipment Committee, which could well be a stumbling block unless WS need Rastegar's money to save them..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they do have a tendency to like money :)  they burn through it at a fair rate of knots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for my delayed response.

14 hours ago, IPLore said:

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.

Thank you IPLore for your second attempt to answer the question, though this time you appear to be answering another (undisclosed) question.

Here is the question for the third time:

On 1/22/2020 at 12:28 PM, Bruce Hudson said:

Generally, would you (IPLore) describe an entity or individual who has a contracted obligation as a "party"?

If not, please advise what word you would use to describe that entity or individual.

The question clearly does not mention any specific contract.

IPLore appears to have misinterpreted the question again, though implies his answer is "no" by making an effort to answer the "if no" request to advise a word. I'm not confident he intended his answer to be no.

IPLore didn't frame the contracts he cited as examples, rather pushed two agendas:

  • To characterize me as being wrong or potentially lacking in understanding.
  • To push his own myopic interpretations of the relationships between ILCA and the builders.

 (You aren't very good at this are you IPLore.)

Share this post


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

I suppose it depends on whether you are starting a new class (and association) or a new class association (for an existing class).  To me, what constitutes a class is ambiguous in WS rules, with Class and Class Association used interchangeably e.g. Classes which offer a high standard of international competitive sailing and satisfy the criteria set out in World Sailing Regulation 10 may be designated as a World Sailing Class Association. Perhaps one of the lawyers would like to give an opinion?

See also https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingClassEntryGuidelines2019-[24647].pdf - you need the endorsement of the Equipment Committee, which could well be a stumbling block unless WS need Rastegar's money to save them..

Maybe they aren't planning a separate association, just a manufacturer-backed series of regattas open to Laser sailors (presumably including their Club Lasers? ILCAs too?).    They may have in mind to do exactly the sort of grassroots, fun based class development that others have suggested, away from the pressure of rankings and squad qualification. 

 Will be interesting to see what's proposed and how it interfaces with what the UKLA are doing. Anyone know if they've been talking?  I haven't seen anything elsewhere, either... wonder if it'll just be UK and if it will help or hinder their dealers...  One of their UK dealers is based in Scotland but I'm skeptical that LP will want to invest in events so far from their core South Coast activity.

 Lots of questions... presumably why they are trailing the announcement... to generate some chat.

 As to reinstatement... anyone else think the documents they've been asked to sign are likely to be unpalatable? Must be pretty galling to have the rug pulled out from under your business like this.

Cheers,

               W.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Am I the only one utterly confused by the ongoing debate between IPL and Bruce?

No. 

The" debate" between the two does break out on here from time to time.

Always the same pattern.

1. Bruce (who is not a lawyer) writes a very confusing post about some legal issue.
2. IPLore (who is a lawyer) gently tries to explain to Bruce how the law really applies to the situation.
3. Bruce writes an even more confusing post and gets all passive aggressive with IPLore.
4. Go back to 2 and repeat indefinitely.

I don't know why either of them continue with the game.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

True enough, but they can build membership much faster than ILCA can build boats.

It seems to me there is a real risk that this will end up like darts with multiple champions, which is ultimately unsustainable. Or boxing. Maybe Rastegar is the new Don King...

Maybe the threat of this will knock heads together. 

I'm going to bet you right now that there is exactly ZERO - 0 risk of that happening.   I can see the headline now "A massive exit of past Laser class Olympic champions exit the ILCA to get in the exact same boat that's just missing an ILCA plaque to begin a brand new, umm, errr, Laser class!"

Seriously?  

Yeah- Rastegar is the new Don King with no Mohamad Ali or Mike Tyson...i.e no following.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Maybe they aren't planning a separate association, just a manufacturer-backed series of regattas open to Laser sailors (presumably including their Club Lasers? ILCAs too?).    They may have in mind to do exactly the sort of grassroots, fun based class development that others have suggested, away from the pressure of rankings and squad qualification. 

 Will be interesting to see what's proposed and how it interfaces with what the UKLA are doing. Anyone know if they've been talking?  I haven't seen anything elsewhere, either... wonder if it'll just be UK and if it will help or hinder their dealers...  One of their UK dealers is based in Scotland but I'm skeptical that LP will want to invest in events so far from their core South Coast activity.

 Lots of questions... presumably why they are trailing the announcement... to generate some chat.

 As to reinstatement... anyone else think the documents they've been asked to sign are likely to be unpalatable? Must be pretty galling to have the rug pulled out from under your business like this.

Cheers,

               W.

This is no real surprise.  He said he was going to do this in his during his online interview in July.  Well, he said lots of things in that interview.  This is one that has actually come to fruition.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm going to bet you right now that there is exactly ZERO - 0 risk of that happening.   I can see the headline now "A massive exit of past Laser class Olympic champions exit the ILCA to get in the exact same boat that's just missing an ILCA plaque to begin a brand new, umm, errr, Laser class!"

Seriously?  

Yeah- Rastegar is the new Don King with no Mohamad Ali or Mike Tyson...i.e no following.

Hubris. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

 

IPLore appears to have misinterpreted the question again, though implies his answer is "no" by making an effort to answer the "if no" request to advise a word. I'm not confident he intended his answer to be no.

 

No, he did not.  He answered you clearly and concisely.  You can't change something's meaning by asking about it 4000 times.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Hubris. 

In this case.  Yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some here keep forgetting that Rastegar is in the business of manufacturing and selling recreational boats for profit. Creating a class associations of said boats is not a requirement to sell them. It's up to the people sailing those boats to decide whether they want a class association or not.

Share this post


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

Am I the only one utterly confused by the ongoing debate between IPL and Bruce?

Confused about the details?  Yes.  Confused or surprised that it is happening?  No.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Some here keep forgetting that Rastegar is in the business of manufacturing and selling recreational boats for profit. Creating a class associations of said boats is not a requirement to sell them. It's up to the people sailing those boats to decide whether they want a class association or not.

All true, but as Robbie and many other have pointed out the class association is a built-in fan club for the product.  A fan club where people volunteer their time to market your product.  A shrewd businessman would figure out a way to work with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people assume "Laser League" will be a class association?

Maybe it will be something more along the lines of the Star Sailors League.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why do people assume "Laser League" will be a class association?

Maybe it will be something more along the lines of the Star Sailors League.

That would still be a framework to organise legal class racing for a Laser(TM) Laser though, so amounts to much the same thing. But perhaps without the old fashioned bureaucracy and structure of a traditional CA.

Share this post


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

That would still be a framework to organise legal class racing for a Laser(TM) Laser though, so amounts to much the same thing. But perhaps without the old fashioned bureaucracy and structure of a traditional CA.

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 ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why do people assume "Laser League" will be a class association?

Maybe it will be something more along the lines of the Star Sailors League.

Like "Stars on Ice"?  Will there be a world tour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the boxing analogy. You will be able to fight for both the ILCA and LL titles! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 3:39 PM, aroy210677 said:

Elbow was ‘78. Legendary regatta. ...
I remember meeting the town mayor. He also pumped gas and tended bar in the “Licensed Beverage Room” (as it was called). 

 

On 1/19/2020 at 1:43 AM, bill4 said:

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

Bill and Andy are right:

"Elbow is a village within the Rural Municipality of Loreburn No. 254, in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada situated halfway between Regina & Saskatoon on Highway 19, . The village had a population of 337 at the 2016 Canada Census, (a 7.3% increase from 314 in the 2011 Canada Census).  The village contains a boat dealership and two restaurants. There is also a sod house, (which is used for a museum) and a library.

Commutron Industries assembles electronic circuit boards, and employs up to 30 people at times. More recent community enhancement projects would include the active involvement in the Gardiner Dam Terminal grain elevator.

Elbow is a very active little community, with a population of 300 neighbours and friends, and a great place to raise a family. Think life in a small town is boring? Get active in the following clubs & organizations:

  • Elbow Library Board
  • Elbow Civic Centre Board
  • Elbow Service Club
  • Lake Diefenbaker Tourism Committee
  • Elbow Museum Board
  • Loreburn- Elbow Legion
  • 19ers Minor Hockey
  • 19ers Hockey Senior Team
  • Recreational Hockey
  • Figure Skating
  • Men's & Ladies Golf Clubs
  • Volunteer Fire Department
  • First Responders
  • Churches, including Catholic, Lutheran & United
  • Elbow Housing Authority (senior/low income housing units)"

It sounds AWESOME! How did you guys find it? When are we going back?

 

(Keen followers of this thread will notice the trigger word for Clean;))

Share this post


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

I like the boxing analogy. You will be able to fight for both the ILCA and LL titles! 

But there wont be an LL world champion......so maybe LL Global Champion?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But there wont be an LL world champion......so maybe LL Global Champion?

Good point! 

Share this post


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

No, he did not.  He answered you clearly and concisely.  You can't change something's meaning by asking about it 4000 times.

I agree, you can't change something's meaning by asking a question multiple times. Hopefully I may get you to reconsider you describing IPLore's answer as clear or concise.

The question was simple, requiring a yes or no answer. Please quote the part where IPLore indicated the affirmative or negative to the question asked.

Respectfully, IPLore's two answers to the question asked were definitely not concise. 

Was the question unclear? Here it is again:

On 1/22/2020 at 12:28 PM, Bruce Hudson said:

Generally, would you (IPLore) describe an entity or individual who has a contracted obligation as a "party".

If not, please advise what word you would use to describe that entity or individual.

So Clean, in your view did IPLore answer yes or no? Because it certainly was not clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, tillerman said:

Why do people assume "Laser League" will be a class association?

Maybe it will be something more along the lines of the Star Sailors League.

that was my initial thought as well. dunno if you're being serious or not, but that would be a pretty cool thing. it's things like SSL and the SailGP with big cash prizes/circuit championships at the end that keep the top guys hooked in. however, likelihood is that it's not the case and it's something else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Am I the only one utterly confused by the ongoing debate between IPL and Bruce?

You might be part of a very small group...

who other than, Bruce, IPL and Clean are reading and responding to that to and fro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, torrid said:

All true, but as Robbie and many other have pointed out the class association is a built-in fan club for the product.  A fan club where people volunteer their time to market your product.  A shrewd businessman would figure out a way to work with it.

...any evidence of such a person involved?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

It sounds AWESOME! How did you guys find it? When are we going back?

 

The drinking water at the event was from a couple tanker trucks that parked at the site. I thought it would be safer to just drink beer. Not a good plan. But those were the days when the beer was much more important than the racing (at least for me...). But Andy was wrong about one thing. Those weren't poodles being blown off the chain. They were jackalopes. 

jackalope_in_the_wild_large.jpg?11502701639502724114

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The drinking water at the event was from a couple tanker trucks that parked at the site. I thought it would be safer to just drink beer. Not a good plan. But those were the days when the beer was much more important than the racing (at least for me...). But Andy was wrong about one thing. Those weren't poodles being blown off the chain. They were jackalopes. 

jackalope_in_the_wild_large.jpg?11502701639502724114

The Canadian Jackalope seems more "sporty" than our Southern Appalachian Jackalope.

Traynor_Jackalope.jpg.124463773ebe759239a54908aa82d0d0.jpg

If Andy saw Poodles and you saw Jackalopes.......could I suggest respectfully that the answer might be:

10 minutes ago, bill4 said:

I thought it would be safer to just drink beer. Not a good plan. But those were the days when the beer was much more important than the racing

Seems to me that the solution to all of our problems might be inviting Rastegaar for a friendly Jackalope hunt at the Armstrong ranch in Kennedy County Texas, with our former Vice President from Wyoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IPLore made the following statement:

 

On 1/22/2020 at 1:34 PM, IPLore said:

By definition, a contract cannot impose a "contracted obligation" on an entity or natural person who is not a party to the contract.

IPLore is 'textbook correct', especially when dealing with a single contract.

These obligations (explicit or implied) are not imposed, they are agreed to. (IPLore's introduces new phrases, in this case "imposed", possibly in an attempt to redefine what I had said.)

We are not dealing with a single contract here and both contracts require the other to be meaningful.

My approach has always been that because the ILCA's obligations were to the builders not parties to the IYRU agreement (PSA and PSJ never signed the IYRU agreement), those obligations only existed to the builders as a consequence of the builder's contract.

My view consequentially is that these multiple agreements form a collection of agreements which the ILCA is a party to. This is not a legal point to make, nor was ever intended to be. In my view it was always more accurate to say they were a party to the agreements than not. I fully understand IPLore's position, my take is that when communicating outside of the legal environment, saying that ILCA is not a party to the contracts does not describe the relationship between the builders and ILCA.

21 hours ago, IPLore said:

The Builders agreements created no obligations on behalf of the ILCA.

Again, IPLore is more true than not, but again, IPLore says something different to what I said. I'm not saying that the builder's agreement created ILCA's obligations themselves.

Without the builders agreements, the obligations (implied or explicit) meant that the ILCA had no builders to inspect, as ILCA agreed to do in the IYRU agreement. The existence of the builder's agreements created a relationship between the builders and ILCA.

In my view, to say that the ILCA is not a party to the builder's contract implies that the provisions that prescribe content in the IYRU agreement don't exist, that the ILCA's role (including obligations) with the construction manual don't matter, and that they don't have an implied obligation in the IYRU agreement to inspect builders.

What makes ILCA being a party to the builder's agreements more true than not, is that the ILCA's obligations have no builders to be obligated to without them.

---

The new contracts appear to simplify the relationship which is good, and mean that the old contracts have no more relevance to the ILCA membership.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites