Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Mambo Kings said:

IPL's answer was clear to most of us.

Then Mambo Kings posted what he though IPLore's answer to be:

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.

...and for clarity, here's the question 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"?

In examining IPLore's answer, we can confidently say that according to IPLore what contracts cannot do. However IPLore's answer does not answer the question. Does IPLore mean to say "yes" or "no" to describing entities as described as a "party"?

Thank you Mambo Kings for your best efforts to make a positive contribution to this conversation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 11.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Wess

    1744

  • tillerman

    1278

  • Bill5

    1138

  • RobbieB

    892

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is no simple way to describe the procedure for complying with World Sailing’s Equipment Policy. However, there is enough misinformation flying about on various forums and social media that some

Hi Torrid, yes, it's 50year old legacy fiberglass, but there are a multitude of nuances, that Turner has alluded to in his video, that we have heard from just about everyone one of the new builders an

hell, I'd build em

Posted Images

1 hour ago, JMP said:

cool to see the carbon radial lower section finally released, did pucker a little with the price being 3x that of the alloy section, I hoped it was coming out closer to $1K AUD
http://www.nbsailsports.com.au/store/product-info.php?pid2268.html

If it lasts more than 4x as many races as the tin ones do you'll still be ahead!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tillerman said:

 

Damn you Tiller. That quote in your earlier post was so funny I canntt believe anyone who could fog a mirror actually wrote it.  I thought you were just funnin and rewriting his post and I actually had to go and briefly take him off ignore to see what he had actually written.  OMG he really wrote what you quoted!  Thank God for ignore; I would have lost many keyboards. And you never answered the Aero fees question on the other thread... I keep a list LOL.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Wess said:

Damn you Tiller. That quote in your earlier post was so funny I canntt believe anyone who could fog a mirror actually wrote it.  I thought you were just funnin and rewriting his post and I actually had to go and briefly take him off ignore to see what he had actually written.  OMG he really wrote what you quoted!  Thank God for ignore; I would have lost many keyboards. And you never answered the Aero fees question on the other thread... I keep a list LOL.

Bruce certainly writes some of the most bizarre convoluted sentences ever seen in the English language. 

I thought Bill answered your question about the RS Aero with his response about the WS fee (which I assume is standard for all World Sailing Classes.) I am not aware of any other fees on new Aeros to fund the class association. In North America we pay $40 a year to join the class. Class membership is required for state, regional and higher level regattas.

Having said that RS Sailing does do a great job of working with the class to promote the boat and to support major events, e.g. in provision of charter boats. Talking of that, there is still time for you to sign up for the early bird discount rate for a charter boat for the 2020 RS Aero Worlds at the Gorge this summer. 

https://www.rsaerosailing.org/index.asp?p=event&eid=1693 

Update: Just realized that I am in one of the photos of RS Aeros at the Gorge on the page linked above. Hilarious!

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

Bruce certainly writes some of the most bizarre convoluted sentences ever seen in the English language. 

I thought Bill answered your question about the RS Aero with his response about the WS fee (which I assume is standard for all World Sailing Classes.) I am not aware of any other fees on new Aeros to fund the class association. In North America we pay $40 a year to join the class. Class membership is required for state, regional and higher level regattas.

Having said that RS Sailing does do a great job of working with the class to promote the boat and to support major events, e.g. in provision of charter boats. Talking of that, there is still time for you to sign up for the early bird discount rate for a charter boat for the 2020 RS Aero Worlds at the Gorge this summer. 

https://www.rsaerosailing.org/index.asp?p=event&eid=1693 

Update: Just realized that I am in one of the photos of RS Aeros at the Gorge on the page linked above. Hilarious!

Wait what?!  Oh I am so going to have fun with this.  You who argued in favor of these hidden fees ILCA is collecting from non members (and Laser fees are WAY higher than what you are quoting for Aero) is in a class where the class association collects $0 from the builder on each boat sold?  Shocking, LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interest of clarity 

This the way to the museyroom. Mind your hats goan in! 
Now yiz are in the Willingdone Museyroom. This is a Prooshi- 
ous gunn. This is a ffrinch. Tip. This is the flag of the Prooshi- 
ous, the Cap and Soracer. This is the bullet that byng the flag of 
the Prooshious. This is the ffrinch that fire on the Bull that bang 
the flag of the Prooshious. Saloos the Crossgunn! Up with your 
pike and fork! Tip. (Bullsfoot! Fine!) This is the triplewon hat of 
Lipoleum. Tip. Lipoleumhat. This is the Willingdone on his 
same white harse, the Cokenhape. This is the big Sraughter Wil- 
lingdone, grand and magentic in his goldtin spurs and his ironed 
dux and his quarterbrass woodyshoes and his magnate's gharters 
and his bangkok's best and goliar's goloshes and his pullupon- 
easyan wartrews. This is his big wide harse. Tip. This is the three 
lipoleum boyne grouching down in the living detch. This is an 
inimyskilling inglis, this is a scotcher grey, this is a davy, stoop- 
ing. This is the bog lipoleum mordering the lipoleum beg. A 
Gallawghurs argaumunt. This is the petty lipoleum boy that 
was nayther bag nor bug. Assaye, assaye! Touchole Fitz Tuo- 
mush. Dirty MacDyke. And Hairy O'Hurry. All of them 
arminus-varminus. This is Delian alps. This is Mont Tivel, 
this is Mont Tipsey, this is the Grand Mons Injun. This is the 
crimealine of the alps hooping to sheltershock the three lipoleums. 
This is the jinnies with their legahorns feinting to read in their 
handmade's book of stralegy while making their war undisides 
the Willingdone. The jinnies is a cooin her hand and the jinnies is 
a ravin her hair and the Willingdone git the band up. This is big 
Willingdone mormorial tallowscoop Wounderworker obscides 
on the flanks of the jinnies. Sexcaliber hrosspower. Tip. This 

 

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

Wait what?!  Oh I am so going to have fun with this.  You who argued in favor of these hidden fees ILCA is collecting from non members (and Laser fees are WAY higher than what you are quoting for Aero) is in a class where the class association collects $0 from the builder on each boat sold?  Shocking, LOL.


You are comparing apples and kiwifruits.

In the Laser class, the class is responsible for
a) persuading World Sailing to keep the Laser in the Olympics
b) running a process to select new builders
c) making regular inspections of multiple builders all over the world to ensure compliance
d) Defending itself in lawsuits with the builder and the designer.

None of that  is cheap. I support using fees on all new Lasers to help fund all that activity because most of it, directly or indirectly, benefits all Laser owners.

In the RS Aero Class, the builder not the class led the Olympic application process and supported the Olympic trials. Items b, c and d above also don't apply to the RS Aero.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tillerman said:


You are comparing apples and kiwifruits.

In the Laser class, the class is responsible for
a) persuading World Sailing to keep the Laser in the Olympics
b) running a process to select new builders
c) making regular inspections of multiple builders all over the world to ensure compliance.
None of that  is cheap. I support using fees on all new Laser to help fund all that activity because directly or indirectly those activities benefit all Laser owners.

In the RS Aero Class, the builder not the class led the Olympic application process and supported the Olympic trials. Items b and c above also don't apply to the RS Aero. 
 

Holy evasion batman.  Before you were telling me how the class association did soooo much for the builder and thus the builder should pay.  Applies equally to Aero.  So stop this foolishness and get out there lobbying your Aero class association to collect builder fees! You have a big job ahead of you.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

RS subsidise and support their CAs to a massive extent. If you don't think that expense ends up on the price of a boat then may I interest you in this bridge?

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

Holy evasion batman.  Before you were telling me how the class association did soooo much for the builder and thus the builder should pay.  Applies equally to Aero.  So stop this foolishness and get out there lobbying your Aero class association to collect builder fees! You have a big job ahead of you.

your dimness is showing

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Wess said:

Holy evasion batman.  Before you were telling me how the class association did soooo much for the builder and thus the builder should pay.  Applies equally to Aero.  So stop this foolishness and get out there lobbying your Aero class association to collect builder fees! You have a big job ahead of you.

 

44 minutes ago, JimC said:

RS subsidise and support their CAs to a massive extent. If you don't think that expense ends up on the price of a boat then may I interest you in this bridge?

At the risk of starting to sound like the kiwifruit, what I said was that I am not aware of any specific fees applied to the sale of each new RS Aero to fund the class. On the other hand I would not dispute JimC's assertion. RS Sailing does support the RS Aero class in many ways. The funding for that activity obviously comes from the sale of new boats.

I guess I do sound like the kiwifruit. This is so pettifogging. The important thing is that RS Sailing, Peter Barton and the class officers are all doing a great job of promoting the RS Aero. Don't rock the boat!

 

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

Wait what?!  Oh I am so going to have fun with this.  You who argued in favor of these hidden fees ILCA is collecting from non members (and Laser fees are WAY higher than what you are quoting for Aero) is in a class where the class association collects $0 from the builder on each boat sold?  Shocking, LOL.

 

41 minutes ago, tillerman said:

 

At the risk of starting to sound like the kiwifruit, what I said was that I am not aware of any specific fees applied to the sale of each new RS Aero to fund the class. On the other hand I would not dispute JimC's assertion. RS Sailing does support the RS Aero class in many ways. The funding for that activity obviously comes from the sale of new boats.

I guess I do sound like the kiwifruit. This is so pettifogging. The important thing is that RS Sailing, Peter Barton and the class officers are all doing a great job of promoting the RS Aero. Don't rock the boat!

Careful, there, Tiller! RS and Peter may find themselves heaped into Wess' idiots and liars category!

Note the Olympic Class boats get dinged another 1.5% on boats and certain gear by WS (not ILCA). I guess that's the "WAY higher" Wess is referring to. Let's have a look at the hidden fees that are hidden in broad daylight in the ILCA North American Region Website. 

What does the class association do with your membership dues? 

The first $15.00 of your membership dues go to pay the North American staff who work incredibly hard to: make sure our North American events get scheduled every year and that these events follow the high standards of the Laser Class, to publish our quarterly newsletter, etc. Importantly, that money also makes sure that if you ever have a question you can simply pick up the phone, or send an email, and a knowledgeable person will answer you right away. 

Depending on exchange rates, the next $10.00 of your dues goes to the International Class where they use the money to pay their staff to make sure world level events get scheduled, ensuring all the boats are the same by inspecting the builders to make sure they are complying with the Laser Construction Manual, keep track of rules changes proposed by members, interfacing with ISAF on various levels, including keeping both the Laser Standard and Laser Radial as Olympic equipment, etc. 

A little over $10.00 goes to the quarterly assembling, printing and mailing of The Laser Sailor to you for the year. 

Around $8.00 goes to support and promotion, ranging from direct support of the districts and regattas to the website. 

Most of the remaining dues goes to all the things it takes to running an organization of 2000 members.  Your membership dues are used to keep the Laser Standard, Laser Radial and Laser 4.7 as THE singlehanded dinghy to sail and race in North America and throughout the world! 

NAUS Laser Association 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Blah blah blah

Here are two yes/no questions for you

Let's say you lease some office space. In the lease agreement it states in accordance with the fire code, the fire extinguisher needs to be inspected, and you will let the inspector into your premises.

1) Do you believe the inspector is a party to your lease agreement with the landlord? 

2) If you don't let the inspector in, do you believe he (the inspector) has rights to some sort of recourse from you via the lease? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would appreciate it if that explanation could be published only once a year  in fine print rather than using up an entire page of expensive newsletter space . 
 

15 pages of the 44 page introductory ILCA magazine were consumed by advertising, covers, table of contents, schedules, contact information, and the two pages of pitch for joining. 
 

30 pages actually had sailing content and that is a record since the Introduction of the glossy format. 
A lot of the expensive space  was wasted on absurdly large print.

baby steps.. it seems the ILCA is just a little bit more focused on dissemination of information about the game and inviting people out to play. 

 

. There are more pages available in the new 44 page ILCA than  the old 32 page Laser Sailor ( Of course the 44 page  ILCA  glossy format would need 128 pages to have as much communication space as the old 64 page newsprint Laser Sailor) 

I never thought the 64 page newsprint newsletter had enough space. We were always cutting articles, limiting advertising, and using fine print to pack in more information. 
Of course we now have the website and social media like Dinghy Anarchy, the Laser Forums, Facebook, and a myriad of district and regatta websites and pages. 
 

There is a great regatta in Dallas this weekend!!! 
we need a supplier of toys and lots of folks madly dragging others out to play!!! 
In fact, our Club finances are such that we can pay people enough money to quit their real life jobs and serve as full time promoters / recruiters / cheerleaders of the Laser Cult. 
 

let’s focus on minimizing the giant sucking sound of unnecessary administrative nonsense and let our paid staff focus on gathering and disseminating information. 
 

always remember 

EVERY SECOND spent running the organization is wasted time tgat couid have been spent on the actual mission of the organization...making the game better for all of us. 
 

Finally: Don't waste our money telling us how you spend it telling us how you spend it. 
 

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

Here are two yes/no questions for you

Let's say you lease some office space. In the lease agreement it states in accordance with the fire code, the fire extinguisher needs to be inspected, and you will let the inspector into your premises.

1) Do you believe the inspector is a party to your lease agreement with the landlord? 

2) If you don't let the inspector in, do you believe he (the inspector) has rights to some sort of recourse from you via the lease? 

The simple contract scenario: Assuming that there is one simple contract between the landlord and the tenant (Which the inspector hasn't signed, but is mentioned in):

  1. No.
  2. No.

Conventional rules apply.

---

Co-joined contracts, an unusual more complex scenario: Assuming that the lease agreement was required to be written in a certain way because of a governing contract the inspector and the landlord were parties to; that the lease agreement included a clause that said that the tenant needed to abide to all the terms and conditions to the governing contract; that the lease agreement was as if the tenant was a party to that governing contract that meant the inspector had obligations to the tenant; and the tenant obligations to the inspector; and the inspector hasn't signed the lease:

  1. Possibly yes. (But I'm not clear on that - is there a better word? Because the inspector has obligations to the tenant, and the tenant to the builder, the inspector is more than a third-party beneficiary).
  2. Yes. (Assuming it says so in the governing contract).

This is an unconventional lease. It would be surprising to find such an arrangement in the rel world with any form of contract. (But such an governing or header contract was drafted for the Laser class in the 1970s, impacting all parties: the designer, the Laser class, the trademark holders and the builders. I've never seen it anywhere else.)

(Thanks Bill! For each scenario I have used the words "yes" and "no" to be as clear and concise as I can)

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

Thank you for the above.

My sense is that "third-party beneficiary" does not describe the relationship that the ILCA and builders had with each other.

ILCA's had obligations to the builders that would not exist unless the builders became builders (i.e. executed the builders' contract).

The IYRU agreement was designed with the builders' agreement in mind, even prescribing some of the content. The builders' agreement included the builders agreeing to all the terms and conditions of the IYRU agreement, as if they were party to that agreement. These were co-joined agreements, and each party definitely had a deeper relationship than being just a third-party beneficiary.

Maybe they are "pseudo parties" - but there are definitely obligations the ILCA had that bound the ILCA with each contracted builder - that wouldn't exist without the builders contracts.

Looking at PSJ - PSJ never signed the IYRU agreement, nor ILCA PSJ's builders agreement.

Any thoughts beyond ?

No, they are third party bens.  If you believe ILCA have an obligation set forth in a builder agreement, simply post the clause of the contract that sets forth the obligation.  Hint: An obligation will have 'shall', 'will', or 'must' in front of the verb.

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

No, they are third party bens.  If you believe ILCA have an obligation set forth in a builder agreement, simply post the clause of the contract that sets forth the obligation.  Hint: An obligation will have 'shall', 'will', or 'must' in front of the verb.

Because the IYRU agreement in its entirety forms a part of the builders agreement, there are many examples.

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

Because the IYRU agreement in its entirety forms a part of the builders agreement, there are many examples.

Nope, you have to find it in the agreement or we are talking about a different agreement.

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

If you have a better term than "co-joined contracts", then I'll use that! (Surely one already exists?)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Your thoughts go beyond!!!!!!

1106805165_BrucesEndlessThoughts.png.49ced4d7677c444ac14ed39af8aa356b.png

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

If you have a better term than "co-joined contracts", then I'll use that! (Surely one already exists?)

It's not a thing.  A contract is a contract.  Many contracts are many contracts.  If a contract incorporates another by reference, that's also a different thing.  Some would call the different contracts controlling a relationship the 'material agreements.'  So you could say that ILCA, the builders, and WS are all parties to material agreements controlling the Laser Class.   Would that make you happy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mambo Kings said:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Your thoughts go beyond!!!!!!

1106805165_BrucesEndlessThoughts.png.49ced4d7677c444ac14ed39af8aa356b.png

Now I understand why people say it was the 2 weeks of DNA evidence review that lost the OJ case....

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

Nope, you have to find it in the agreement or we are talking about a different agreement.

I agree that the IYRU agreement is a different, but not separate agreement.

The builders agreement says:

image.png.6fdab7e9ddb7c651c12f41650a7d592d.png

and from the IYRU agreement there are clauses like:

image.png.560e138f1a8c9c5dfddb77b44a02dd4b.png

Also, the IYRU agreement prescribed content of the builder's agreement.

I would entirely agree that conventional rules would apply if we were talking about a simple, stand alone conventional agreement.

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

If you have a better term than "co-joined contracts", then I'll use that! (Surely one already exists?)

30 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The simple contract scenario:

---

Co-joined contracts, an unusual more complex scenario:

There is no such thing as a "co-joined contract" or even anything remotely like what you are trying to describe with any name.

There is such a thing as a joinder agreement. (An additional agreement binding further parties to an agreement) This is not one. It is completely different and I doubt Clean can be bothered to explain it to you. I know that I cannot be bothered. No joinder agreements were signed by anyone involved in the Laser class.

The law is elegantly simple.  Don't make stuff up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an example of an implied obligation from the IYRU agreement:

image.png.1045e74634919ce0ff1f0dab38141838.png

image.png.bf5940ff11a24bfe39988c90cb28284e.png

Where the ILCA has the "right" to inspect builders; though since such inspections are required to ensure that the Laser class continues to be an international class, the ILCA in fact is obligated to ensure that the boats meet the standards outlined in the construction manual.

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

I agree that the IYRU agreement is a different, but not separate agreement.

The builders agreement says:

image.png.6fdab7e9ddb7c651c12f41650a7d592d.png

and from the IYRU agreement there are clauses like:

image.png.560e138f1a8c9c5dfddb77b44a02dd4b.png

Also, the IYRU agreement prescribed content of the builder's agreement.

I would entirely agree that conventional rules would apply if we were talking about a simple, stand alone conventional agreement.

Trust me, these were very simple agreements, albeit sloppily written.

1. Please answer Clean's question and point to any clause in the Builders agreement which creates an "obligation" for the ILCA

2. Please point to any clause in the Builders Agreement which requires ILCA to comply with the IYRU agreement.  The ILCA is NOT a licensee.

3. Please point to any clause in the Builders Agreement which makes LCA a promisor in the contract

The IYRU agreement is a separate agreement for the ILCA which ILCA comply with because they are a party to that contract.

 

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

There is no such thing as a "co-joined contract" or even anything remotely like what you are trying to describe with any name.

There is such a thing as a joinder agreement. (An additional agreement binding further parties to an agreement) This is not one. It is completely different and I doubt Clean can be bothered to explain it to you. I know that I cannot be bothered. No joinder agreements were signed by anyone involved in the Laser class.

Thank you IPLore for mentioning "joinder agreements". I have never come across that term before.

image.png.4f8698a7487db058f8dcf49dcdc812b7.png

Since the builder's agreement says:

image.png.6fdab7e9ddb7c651c12f41650a7d592d.png

The builder's contract sounds remarkably similar to a joinder agreement.

---

5 minutes ago, IPLore said:

The law is elegantly simple.  Don't make stuff up.

Did you make that up? I'm please I did, though it was in the spirit of finding stuff out. Anyhow, originally, all things legal were made up. 

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

Here is an example of an implied obligation from the IYRU agreement:

image.png.1045e74634919ce0ff1f0dab38141838.png

image.png.bf5940ff11a24bfe39988c90cb28284e.png

Where the ILCA has the "right" to inspect builders; though since such inspections are required to ensure that the Laser class continues to be an international class, the ILCA in fact is obligated to ensure that the boats meet the standards outlined in the construction manual.

Those clauses do not create a contractual obligation, they confer a right.

The fiduciary obligation of the class to maintain OD standards is not a contractual obligation.

However....this is entirely irrelevant. Jeff Martin always took the position that the ILCA was a party to the IYRU agreement and that ILCA had an entitlement to inspect manufacturing.  When you accused Jeff Martin of lying or being less than honest.....you said  this was because he stated that the ILCA was not a party to the Builders Contract . They were NOT. Jeff was right. You were wrong. You owe him a posthumous apology. Its as simple as that. 

You dont have the balls to apologize so you go on and on and on trying to wriggle out of a simple mistake that you made.

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

 

image.png.6fdab7e9ddb7c651c12f41650a7d592d.png

The builder's contract sounds remarkably similar to a joinder agreement.

---

 

It doesnt look remotely like a joinder agreement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Trust me, these were very simple agreements, albeit sloppily written.

 1. Please answer Clean's question and point to any clause in the Builders agreement which creates an "obligation" for the ILCA

2. Please point to any clause in the Builders Agreement which requires ILCA to comply with the IYRU agreement.  The ILCA is NOT a licensee.

3. Please point to any clause in the Builders Agreement which makes LCA a promisor in the contract

The IYRU agreement is a separate agreement for the ILCA which ILCA comply with because they are a party to that contract.

  1. Inside the builder's contract there is no obligation, if you take the view that the IYRU agreement does not form a part of the builder's contract, there is no obligation written.
  2. There is no such clause, and such a point is not relevant because I have not claimed such a thing.
  3. It doesn't.

However the signing of the contract itself means that the builder becomes a licencee, and that means the ILCA's obligations have a party on whom to exercise those obligations. By the signing of the agreements, the builders/licensees get added to an appendix of the IYRU agreement.

I agree that the agreements are sloppily written. In my view, the builder's agreement and the IYRU were not separate agreements.

---

These are old agreements, and no longer have any current relevance to the ILCA membership.

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

nice!

Devoti Sailing s.r.o. (Poland)
Element 6 Evolution Co Ltd (Thailand)
Nautivela srl (Italy)
Ovington Boats Ltd (United Kingdom)
Qindao Zou Inter Marine Co., Ltd (China)
Rio tecna srl (Argentina)
Zim Sailing (United States)

Ok Wess- new bet..How long will it take Zim to get hulls going in the US?  I'm betting soon....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Those clauses do not create a contractual obligation, they confer a right.

Agreed.

Quote

The fiduciary obligation of the class to maintain OD standards is not a contractual obligation.

Agreed. Earlier I said "implied obligation". In earlier comments I referred to obligations (explicit or implied). 

Quote

However....this is entirely irrelevant.

I acknowledge that is your opinion.

Quote

Jeff Martin always took the position that the ILCA was a party to the IYRU agreement and that ILCA had an entitlement to inspect manufacturing.  When you accused Jeff Martin of lying or being less than honest.....you said  this was because he stated that the ILCA was not a party to the Builders Contract . They were NOT. Jeff was right. You were wrong. You owe him a posthumous apology. Its as simple as that. 

Again IPLore you in my view mischaracterize me and sum up what I said inaccurately. Heini around 2011 said that the ILCA had no knowledge of the content of the builder's agreements as a part of the fundamental rule change. The IYRU agreement was prescriptive of some the content of the builder's agreement, plus formed a part of the builder's agreement. The ILCA clearly had knowledge of that because Jeff Martin signed the IYRU agreement on behalf of the ILCA.

Back in 2016, I acknowledged that Jeff Martin made a huge contribution to the class, and that such contributions did not make him (or anyone) beyond reproach.

I will unreservedly and publicly apologize if you can show me where I made the claim exactly how you describe. 

I treat such an accusation very seriously. I am now posting under my own name, and stand by what I have said. If I did not make such a claim (and it is my strong view that I didn't) then posting that accusation reflects poorly on you personally IPLore.

I want you to know that I have spoken about this with people who were close to Jeff Martin. They acknowledge that 

Quote

You dont have the balls to apologize so you go on and on and on trying to wriggle out of a simple mistake that you made.

I acknowledge that in your view you think I made a simple mistake. Again you mischarachterize my position. It is not a simple mistake, nor does it mean I lack familiarity with the contracts.

In this informal forum I am attempting to describe the relationship between the ILCA and the builders who are bound as parties to related contracts.

If you think I lack the courage to apologize then think again. I will not apologize for something that you made up, that falsely misrepresents what I did or said.

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

Devoti Sailing s.r.o. (Poland)
Element 6 Evolution Co Ltd (Thailand)
Nautivela srl (Italy)
Ovington Boats Ltd (United Kingdom)
Qindao Zou Inter Marine Co., Ltd (China)
Rio tecna srl (Argentina)
Zim Sailing (United States)

Ok Wess- new bet..How long will it take Zim to get hulls going in the US?  I'm betting soon....

China ZIM or Rhode Island Zim?

As a man who likes a wager, I would bet on China ZIM.

If the Class does its job and ensures that all boats are identical from every source .....then China ZIM is going to crush with its pricing model (even RS sub contract their boats to China ZIM)

Ovington and Devoti will doubtless embark on an Orwellian marketing theme hinting that their boats are more equal than others.

This will be fun and challenging for the class......an exciting new chapter from which will emerge a new duopoly

 

 

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

Devoti Sailing s.r.o. (Poland)
Element 6 Evolution Co Ltd (Thailand)
Nautivela srl (Italy)
Ovington Boats Ltd (United Kingdom)
Qindao Zou Inter Marine Co., Ltd (China)
Rio tecna srl (Argentina)
Zim Sailing (United States)

Ok Wess- new bet..How long will it take Zim to get hulls going in the US?  I'm betting soon....

You gotta pay up on the old one first LOL.  That said I believe this is going to get pretty interesting.  Suspect both sides (well at least one side) having been keeping their powder dry and there are some more shoes to drop. 

*  But OK I am willing to go double or nothing.  When do you say there is a US built Zim Laser hull at my local dealer? 

What do you mean by "soon" LOL.  We already know in ILCA terms it mean at least 300 days!!!  A year is fast approaching.  Oddly enough I gotta run a half marathon on the anniversary... but there IS beer at the end so we could toast something if you want to join me!

Edit to add - damn IPL and Julian giving you some hints as to why I think my carefully worded (as is the ILCA statement) bet is a slam dunk win for me

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

China ZIM or Rhode Island Zim?

As a man who likes a wager, I would bet on China ZIM.

If the Class does its job and ensures that all boats are identical from every source .....then China ZIM is going to crush with its pricing model (even RS sub contract their boats to China ZIM)

Ovington and Devoti will doubtless embark on an Orwellian marketing theme hinting that their boats are more equal than others.

This will be fun and challenging for the class......an exciting new chapter from which will emerge a new duopoly

 

 

China Zim and US Zim are both on the list.  So, I'm betting US ZIM serves the US market!

The Rio Tecna site shows a Laser wrapped in plastic beside a bunch of Optis stacked and ready for shipping.  That's interesting....Is this a knock off they've already been doing?  

Ovington boats makes some cool boats like the Evo, F15, OK dingy.  Wonder if LP sold them some molds?

Looks like Element 6 only does Nacra's?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Element 6 is Pom Green (of Green Marine fame) & John Higham. They operate put of Kevin Witcraft's factory in Bangkok.  I had lunch with Higham 2 day's ago, was in the factory 2 weeks ago.

Very automated, set up like a car production line. You can eat lunch of the floor.  They will make a great boat.   All the glass pre cut by plotter, all the foam milled in house, styrene scrubbers, very environmental. Everything computer controlled and ISO 2014.

And Kevin (who is American by parentage but Thai by birth) sells a vast number of car's into Asia and fluent in 4-5 Asian languages inc Mandrin. Ohh and to add, presently the pres of IODA.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ZIM doesn't have any US production, does it?  They at least have experience in putting together and selling complete boats, even if with Chinese-made hulls.

edit - What I'm trying to say is it sounds like a viable business model.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, torrid said:

ZIM doesn't have any US production, does it?  They at least have experience in putting together and selling complete boats, even if with Chinese-made hulls.

edit - What I'm trying to say is it sounds like a viable business model.

I did tour the Zim facility in Rhode Island a year or two ago and, as I recall, they were building some hulls in-house. FJs perhaps? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, LMI said:

Zim would be Chinese crap.

All Lasers built anywhere in the world are going to be built in an identical manner with identical materials to the same construction manual and will be indistinguishable from each other .......that is what the class association are promising us right?

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IPLore said:

All Lasers built anywhere in the world are going to be built in an identical manner with identical materials to the same construction manual and will be indistinguishable from each other .......that is what the class association are promising us right?

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The most interesting thing to wait for is where the pricing will start per vendor, (assuming we end up with at least 4 of the 7 applicants making it all the way through).

I will say it's got me pumping the brakes on the PSA I was so hot to trot for....Although they do seem really sweet.  Exciting times folks!

And Yes, Wess, I know it could still be a hot mess too...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

The most interesting thing to wait for is where the pricing will start per vendor, (assuming we end up with at least 4 of the 7 applicants making it all the way through).

I will say it's got me pumping the brakes on the PSA I was so hot to trot for....Although they do seem really sweet.  Exciting times folks!

And Yes, Wess, I know it could still be a hot mess too...

I am just waiting for you to confirm the date for the double or nothing bet you proposed. 

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

Really? Their 420s look pretty good compared to LP. 

Really.

33 minutes ago, IPLore said:

All Lasers built anywhere in the world are going to be built in an identical manner with identical materials to the same construction manual and will be indistinguishable from each other .......that is what the class association are promising us right?

 

What are you smoking?  Not in China they ain't.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JulianB said:

Who (ZIM USA) happen to buy a lot of class legal C420's of Zou.

Do you think ZIM USA as US “builder” would import from China ZIM or build in the US?

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

I am just waiting for you to confirm the date for the double or nothing bet you proposed. 

As an impartial bystander, I remain unconvinced that you have won anything. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

Guess they didn't apply.

Wasn’t suggesting that McLaughlin should build them. Although that would be cool. Just questioning the idea that building in the US is not a viable business model. 

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

All Lasers built anywhere in the world are going to be built in an identical manner with identical materials to the same construction manual and will be indistinguishable from each other .......that is what the class association are promising us right?

Ok, we will see... But - I am willing to give up the benefit of the doubt and will suggest any difference in build will have negligible impact on performance. Seems to me the Aussie myth was blown up a while ago on one of these threads. Just like Foster beer a few years ago... Plus - we are dealing with boat builders here, not baby-buggy manufacturers with a yearning to make a buck. Should someone in NA think they can gain advantage on the fleet by getting a Devoti instead of a Zim and get one shipped over, I would suggest they spend the extra dough and hit a couple decent clinics instead. Plus - the playing field levels virtually completely with supplied boats at the major. I don't see an issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Old Yeller said:

Do you think ZIM USA as US “builder” would import from China ZIM or build in the US?

I don't understand why Zim Sailing would go through all the hassle of the builder approval process if they weren't planning to build ILCA dinghies themselves.

If they were planning to import from China wouldn't they just let Qindao Zou Inter Marine Co., Ltd get approved by ILCA as a builder and then buy from them?

Or am I missing something?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tillerman said:

I don't understand why Zim Sailing would go through all the hassle of the builder approval process if they weren't planning to build ILCA dinghies themselves.

If they were planning to import from China wouldn't they just let Qindao Zou Inter Marine Co., Ltd get approved by ILCA as a builder and then buy from them?

Or am I missing something?

I agree. When JB said that “Who (ZIM USA) happen to buy a lot of class legal C420's of Zou.“ it just got me thinking. Just trying to educate myself here....

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

Devoti Sailing s.r.o. (Poland)
Element 6 Evolution Co Ltd (Thailand)
Nautivela srl (Italy)
Ovington Boats Ltd (United Kingdom)
Qindao Zou Inter Marine Co., Ltd (China)
Rio tecna srl (Argentina)
Zim Sailing (United States)

Ok Wess- new bet..How long will it take Zim to get hulls going in the US?  I'm betting soon....

Okay, this sounds a fun game. I’m gonna guess no Zim boat available to buy in 2020. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2020 at 7:40 AM, 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.

Bruce is to lawyering as Doug Lord is to engineering. When in doubt, repeat a useless argument. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the naysayers need to buy an ILCA membership, and the optimists donate to a youth sailing organization of their choice. Or - the losers have to take sides with Bruce on anything he posts for a year. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bill4 said:

Should someone in NA think they can gain advantage on the fleet by getting a Devoti instead of a Zim and get one shipped over,

Hopefully there would be dealers in the US that would make the boats from all these builders available to US buyers. 

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

Hopefully there would be dealers in the US that would make the boats from all these builders available to US buyers. 

Why would any red-blooded American want to buy anything other than a genuine ILCA Dinghy made In the USA?
 


 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tillerman said:

Why would any red-blooded American want to buy anything other than a genuine ILCA Dinghy made In the USA?

Or assembled in the USA? A willing seller and a willing buyer engaged in voluntary exchange. What could be more American than that? 
I mean, except for tariffs and trade unions!

Edited by Old Yeller
Add content
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Old Yeller said:

Or assembled in the USA? A willing seller and a willing buyer engaged in voluntary exchange. What could be more American than that? 

That kind of thinking is why everything is going to pot.
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites