Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SM123

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. I believe that I suggested this as an explanation for the claim that LPE had overpaid royalties. So, eventually, it ends, not with a bang, but a whimper. Ultimately it looks like LPE has won. Do they get to build more Lasers and not pay the royalties? It looks like (as I think I suggested) Kirby has received terrible legal advice, going back to the original sale of the Laser rights and contracts.
  2. Gantt, Let me ask a couple of questions: do you agree that the ISAF agreement has an arbitration clause and that this arbitration clause also applies to the builders' agreements? Do you agree that BK should have initiated arbitration proceedings in London instead of suing in Connecticut?
  3. Which is interesting, because it means that BK is suing LPE and QM in the wrong venue: since the ISAF has an arbitration clause, and this is incorporated in the builders' agreements, this means that BK should not be suing in Connecticut, instead, he should be initiating an arbitration action in London against LPE and QM. Also, it means that US law doesn't apply: instead English law applies to the Builders' agreements.
  4. OK, I'll agree that I was wrong there. My apologies. But I am not sure why we are discussing this. That agreement was between Kirby and the builders: the ICLA wasn't a party to those agreements. Yet, you keep posting as though there is no difference. You keep making the same unsupported claims. Quote the text where I stated that the ISAF agreement gives BK no "design rights". I pointed out that only a few clauses are binding on ICLA. I never said that the ISAF did not bind the ICLA in any form. Why are we discussing this? It's just another unsupported claim from you. For e
  5. Again, making stuff up. What is it with you? Can you not see the difference between what I have written and what you infer based on what I have *not* written? Just to help you: one is my opinions and the other is *your* guesses. Can you tell which is which? As for the ICLA, I agree that the executives may have lied to their membership. However, I draw the distinction between lying to the members and the limts that the ICLA has under the ISAF agreement. Again, FALSE! The ISAF agreement was referenced and parts of it formed part of the builders' agreements. But "in its entirety", no
  6. Gantt, all I can say is that your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. Can you not understand that there is a difference between "gives no rights to Kirby" and "the agreement doesn't bind ICLA"?
  7. Whut? Put up or shut up: show where I have made that statement.
  8. Gantt, Whatever happened to BK's claims against the ISAF? It's the ISAF that is required to only issue sail numbers to licensed builders. Shutting down the issuance of sail numbers would surely have a big impact on LPE and QM. So why did the claims against ISAF go away?
  9. No, what matters is what the ISAF agreement actually says. It says: 1. A Laser is a boat built according to the design. The definition of a Laser does not require that it is built by an authorized builder. 2. All parties agree that the boats should be built according to the spec (again, no requirement that it should be built by a licensed builder). Elsewhere the ISAF agreement requires a licensed builder, but ICLA did not agree in the ISAF agreement that builders must be licensed. So, ICLA is in the same position as any other supplier to LPE. No, it's not importan
  10. Gantt, I assume that LPE buys sails from another manufacturer. Should that sailmaker continue to sell sails to LPE and if so, why not? Surely those manufacturers should stop aiding LPE to build "counterfeit" Lasers? How is this any different from ICLA's situation? Remember that the ISAF agreement does not state that ICLA should only deal with licensed builders, nor does it define that the Laser is a boat that is build by licensed builders. The ICLA has the right to change it's own rules, doesn't it, as long as this is not in conflict with ICLA's requirements under the ISAF agreement?
  11. Gantt, You have tried to misconstrue my point. I have been very consistent. My point is that, while Jeff Martin may have had some knowledge of the builders' agreements, his knowledge MAY not be complete. Without complete knowledge, the ICLA cannot be expected to take any particular action. I have suspected for some time that people here are shilling for one party or another. I think that in your case, the point has been made. That was my reason behind following this line of argument. Why do I call you a shill? Because if you were honest, you would just admit that you have personal
  12. I think that I would dispute 20 and 21 also. These paragraphs make claims about the document that go very slightly further than the document itself. For example, it claims that the IYRU agrees that all boats must be manufactured in accordance with the construction manual, but the actual IYRU agreement is slightly different: the agreement merely gives IYRU the right to audit the manufacture. I know that this may seem like splitting hairs, but you don't win lawsuits by letting the other party get away with misconstruing any part of their claims. In the answer to any lawsuit, any lawyer wort
  13. I am saying that you are missing the beginning of 9.1: "9.1 It is understood and agreed by IYRU and Holdings that ..." It says nothing about what ICLA can or cannot do. 9.1 only binds IYRU. It also says nothing about terminating builders. Tell me, have IYRU and Kirby agreed on a replacement builder for the USA and Europe per section 9.2? Is that your current position? That because Jeff Martin knew a small amount of what would be in the builders' agreements, he knew the entire contents? Please tell me where the ISAF agreement specifies the content of the termination c
  14. Paragraphs 19-22 are part of the "Background". You have to read the "Claims" sections to see what BK is actually suing over. Also, paragraphs 19-22 of the complaint do not mention ICLA. Where is that "recheck"-ing that you do before any post? I suspect that the reasons the ICLA did not demand arbitration over the ISAF agreement are twofold: 1. Perhaps the ICLA isn't interested in having the lawsuit finished quickly (this tends to support the idea that ICLA is working in concert with Rastegar) and 2. BK isn't actually suing ICLA over the ISAF agreement. BK did sue ISAF over the ISAF agree
  15. "I hear you, BK didn't have the right to terminate builders' agreements" My comment was badly written. What I meant to discuss was BK's right to terminate the builder's agreement without any fault by the builders. If you look at the PY Small Boats agreement, after 2025, BK has an option to terminate the agreement at a certain time each year. And you have no fact to base this on. It is supposition on your part. You haven't pointed to any document that proves this point. Unless.... you are connected to one of the involved parties? Perhaps you have something to disclose? Either yo
  • Create New...