Search results

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)...

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?

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...

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...

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...

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"?

Whut? Put up or shut up: show where I have made that statement.

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?

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

"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...

A slight correction to my earlier posts: I said earlier that BK has the right to terminate the QM and LPE builders' agreements. This isn't true. I did find that the PY Small boats agreement was extended out to 2025. However, I haven't seen a similar extension for LPE. Wess, My apologies for my...

Some additional comments and a correction: I see that IYRU signed one of the builder's agreements, but it is possible that this procedure was not followed for later agreements. In fact, if you look at the 1995 amendment, you will see that IYRU did not sign this, so may not have had a copy. If...

Wess, Wow, I don't really know where to start. You really need to read the contracts without trying to figure out how they fit into your world view. Once again, you write a huge post, most of which is based on stuff you have made up. Given that you keep doing this, there is no point in a...

I don't agree. LP could be waiting to use this at trial. Or, it could be that it doesn't really help LP, so there is little reason to mention it in any motion. Nevertheless, the lack of a no-fault termination is interesting. Do you have any other explanation?

Adding ... The lack of no-fault termination is interesting for another reason: Rastegar disputes that any royalties are owed. If BK really wants to terminate Rastegar's entities, why not short-circuit the dispute over whether a termination for failure to pay is valid with a no-fault...