Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[Bruce Hudson]

The ILCA are trying to invalidate the contracts. They are acting as if the IYRU Agreement is not current and binding. Kirby has taken the matter to court. Are you saying that he didn't?

Yes I am saying that .

Kirby is not taking the matter of "the IYRU Agreement" to court. He is not suing ILCA for breach of contract. He is not suing ISAF for breach of contract.

Read the claims.

All of the intro' is blurb and hyperbole that we lawyers like to use. But all that really matters is the claims.

"If you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound on the law. If you have neither on your side, pound on the table"

Have a good evening

IPL

Classic IPLore.

More misdirection. You know he's quite right you know about Kirby suing ILCA for breach of contract. Trouble is, nobody is saying that. I know I'm not.

I said that "The ILCA are trying to invalidate the contracts. They are acting as if the IYRU Agreement is not current and binding. Kirby has taken the matter to court. Are you saying that he didn't?"

IPLore is roaring! He says: "Kirby is not taking the matter of "the IYRU Agreement" to court. He is not suing ILCA for breach of contract. He is not suing ISAF for breach of contract."

There are crucial differences in what I said and what IPLore implies I said.

The ILCA are definitely trying to invalidate the contracts. They have done this by taking specific steps that are contrary to their agreement (IYRU Agreement) with Kirby. These are spelt out in Kirby's action, which is in front of the court. It's written in plain language which is easy to understand.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

(Bump. This was the last post before IPLore sucked me in to responding to a whole lot of drivel that doesn't matter.)

I see nothing has happenned in the last few months since I read anything useful here, just the same few people arguing about what they speculate the courts will decide. Its always a long wait while lawyers count dollars.

There's been a few things that have happened.

The courts have made rulings regarding Rastegar and the ISAF meaning they don't have to answer to certain allegations (it's possible that the ruling was about jurisdiction - not sure - doesn't matter). It makes the case a little more focussed, though a small step backwards for Kirby. Kirby's challenge to the Laser Trademark was withdrawn. The main case is mow scheduled to be heard in March 2015. The main thrust is that there is a case to be heard, that the builders contracts and the IYRU agreement are in the public domain. Also, the new sail has been discussed, a report that said that LP were delaying it's introduction has been found to be false, it is actually PSA who are voting against the new sail.

There's been a little discussion about the role that the ILCA has played - and how the information they put forward about patents and design rights being historical are being posted and reposted here - as though they somehow counter what Kirby is talking about with the contracts. I think there needs to be more digging about the role that the ILCA has played. If the skeletons come out of ICLA's closet then they can go forward more openly with better communication.

For me, I'm getting a better understanding on how the contracts work, and have reached a better understanding of what the actions of the key players, of what is misinformation and what isn't.

Sorry Phil that all of that is lost in the detailed posts, I wish the path to finding what the truth is was less verbose on my part!!

 

[redstar]

IPLore, you're nowhere near as much fun now that you insist on spelling Gantt correctly. You disappoint me.

 

[lindy 911]

I usually have to pay a hefty hourly fee to hear this kind of grandstanding and one-upmanship, but here we get it for free.

 

[Wess]

IPLore, you're nowhere near as much fun now that you insist on spelling Gantt correctly. You disappoint me.

Its not necessary anymore. He cann'tt help himself to not repond. Even ignoring how much he gets wrong over and over the best part is that he seems to think he is somehow influencing the outcome... he will deny this, but see the "100s of views a day" post, LOL. And of course he talks to the key players... Wow the ability of emotions and a bromance to ignore rational thought...

This thread needs Guy LaDouche with some of his classic Frank responses. Damn, that was funny.

 

[IPLore]

IPLore, you're nowhere near as much fun now that you insist on spelling Gantt correctly. You disappoint me.

I always endeavor not to disappoint the audience. After all, the court room is 25 % law and 75% entertainment.

I shall henceforth refer to the party as "Can't"

Can't understand the issues

Won't listen to reason

Doesn't want to hear anything good about the Class Association.



On a more serious note. I rejoined this thread and noticed that it had gone off on all kinds of tangents referring to: Design rights, the IYRU contract , right to build, etc . So I provided a brief summation of where I thought we were. Ironically in April and May 2013 I wrote that :-

1. The only IP issue at stake is Trademark -This has subsequently gone away.

2. The tortious interference claim looks to have several profound weaknesses and I doubt that it will meet the pleading requirements. I rate its chances of success at close to zero now.

3. After this, it all comes down a commercial contract between BKI and the builders.

I believe it has come down to a commercial contract dispute between 2 commercial parties. One party alleges breach of contract. The other party alleges that the contract was terminated.

The strength of the opposing claims will be largely affected by discovery.

Instead of chasing vapor about the IYRU contract and designer rights, we could have an interesting discussion about what will be the key issues in discovery and what we suspect might be included in the interrogatories.

 

[IPLore]

I usually have to pay a hefty hourly fee to hear this kind of grandstanding and one-upmanship, but here we get it for free.

Pro bono?

 

[IPLore]

The ILCA are definitely trying to invalidate the contracts. They have done this by taking specific steps that are contrary to their agreement (IYRU Agreement) with Kirby. These are spelt out in Kirby's action, which is in front of the court. It's written in plain language which is easy to understand.

Again, you are claiming that ILCA is somehow in breach of contract with Kirby ("taking specific steps.. contrary to ..IYRU agreement") and yet Kirby does not sue ILCA for breach of contract.

Breach of contract is a much easier case to prove than Tortious Interference with much lower hurdles in terms of pleading standards.

Breach of the IYRU contract would be way more cheaper to pursue than TI because it would be an arbitration. TI requires the expense of a trial and will be at least 5 times more expensive.

If ILCA had broken the IYRU contract, Kirby would have sued for breach of contract and not Tortious Interference.

Gantt, I admire you. You are a brave and stubborn man. Much like General Custer you refuse to surrender even when you are outnumbered and surrounded by the facts. If we could find you the right hill, you would be a hero.

If only the Laser class could find a productive path to channel your admirable energy.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

The ILCA are definitely trying to invalidate the contracts. They have done this by taking specific steps that are contrary to their agreement (IYRU Agreement) with Kirby. These are spelt out in Kirby's action, which is in front of the court. It's written in plain language which is easy to understand.

Again, you are claiming that ILCA is somehow in breach of contract with Kirby ("taking specific steps.. contrary to ..IYRU agreement") and yet Kirby does not sue ILCA for breach of contract.

Breach of contract is a much easier case to prove than Tortious Interference with much lower hurdles in terms of pleading standards.

Breach of the IYRU contract would be way more cheaper to pursue than TI because it would be an arbitration. TI requires the expense of a trial and will be at least 5 times more expensive.

If ILCA had broken the IYRU contract, Kirby would have sued for breach of contract and not Tortious Interference.

Gantt, I admire you. You are a brave and stubborn man. Much like General Custer you refuse to surrender even when you are outnumbered and surrounded by the facts. If we could find you the right hill, you would be a hero.

If only the Laser class could find a productive path to channel your admirable energy.

IPLore, Wess, and Redstar. I guess you three are my becoming my special project. I really wonder what your respective connections with the ILCA, PSA, LP etc. are. I have shared mine. (For those who may think this is looking one sided, I agree. Those three need help. Perhaps Old Dude could join in?)

IPLore, stating that there is no breech of an agreement between Kirby and ILCA because Kirby has not sued for breech of contract does not make sense. In fact, I'm coming to believe that it is yet another misdirection and IPLore is somehow wanting to protect the ILCA. IPLore pretending that he knows that I am anti ILCA may be a sign of that.

What I am saying (and what LPLore is either responding to or misdirecting us away from) is that the ILCA is attempting to invalidate the contracts. The reasons we can reach that view include (but is not limited to):

• We know that the IYRU Agreement exists, and was signed by Jeff Martin. (I expect that a number of this forum have read it.)
• We know that the ILCA said "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements.".
• We know that Kirby has said in his legal action that the ILCA are not providing information.
• We know that such provision of that information is a condition of the IYRU Agreement

For the ISAF it's simpler. Their statement released via their website says: "ISAF regards the recent announcement of the Kirby Torch dinghy as a fundamental breach of contractual arrangements between the parties concerned with the Laser class. ISAF has therefore exercised its right to end those arrangements and will negotiate new arrangements directly with the ILCA."

All of the above supports that the ILCA and ISAF are attempting to invalidate their agreement with Kirby. Perhaps the word should be terminate for ISAF, though with ILCA I think invalidate is more appropriate. It's worthy to note the differences between ISAF's and ILCA's respective approaches. None of what IPLore says counters the above.

The ILCA are involved with Kirby's legal action, and it interesting to read all the submissions and exhibits (eg, emails) that involve them, because we are definitely getting a clearer and clearer picture of what happened and the respective actions of the individuals involved.

Update: Just read Gouv's post. Well said. I want to say it's important to note that all of the ILCA's executive and world council are not implicated with the actions that Gouv speaks of.

 

[torrid]

Pro bono?

He's dead, skied into a tree.

 

[Wess]

Your first paragraph got it exactly right Gouv.

As for the rest, well that is where we leave the land of law and enter into the space of personal preference. In defense of the class, I would suggest that the path you outlined would really not have been practical or wise especially re Olympic sailing. You can't have a class not enforce a rule that you have and not risk legal consequences. For what its worth I like the idea of a nice grey haired old guy in a modest cottage too; its the reality of an estate planning millionaire biting the hand the fed him that I don't like. None of us know everything that went down and at best can have an opinion; but biting the hand that feeds you crosses a line for me. Of course re personal preference everyone will have their own opinion, all of which are valid, but they don't matter in court. Suspect anyone would agree the guy's contribution should be recognized, but do you feel that your great, great grandkids, should be paying his great, great grandkids for an ancient napkin when they go to buy a boat, and worse yet that the class association should be the police/enforcer? Not trying to change your mind; just curious.

 

[IPLore]

It seems we are back where this discussion began.

Kirby says: I have contracts with you and you owe me money.

LP says: We don't owe you money. What contracts?

The laser class says: We no longer wish to function as the enforcement agency for Mr. Kirby and we are therefore removing from our rules the requirement that builders have a contract with Mr. Kirby.

I don't give a rats patootie about this lawsuit. From the get go my objection has been the handling of the situation by the laser class.

I believe the laser class should have left it's rule in It's book but the laser class should have suspended enforcement of that rule while the lawsuit progressed.

To me it is lousy to lack loyalty to your old friends. I find the behavior of the North American laser class and now the international laser class to be offensive, extremely offensive in the way they treat former contributors to the game.

I believe the reason most people contribute is a firm belief that people appreciate their contributions but instead, the north American laser class and now the international laser class act as though all they care about is themselves today.

I find that behavior to be abominable. There is a huge difference between regretfully and with great resistance removing people from positions in the class after years of contribution and gleefully throwing them out. I feel Mr. Kirby has been gleefully cast aside as the old man who doesn't matter anymore.

Perhaps the class does not feel this way but their actions indicate absolutely no appreciation for Mr. Kirby.

As written above there's a wrong way to do things and there are right ways to do things and to gently and with great reluctance remove Mr. Kirby from the process because we see no other way of having our boats is a whole lot different than merely referring to him as historical and no longer important.

The fact is, Kirby may be historical and no longer of any importance but to admit it in public is crass and unacceptable.

Repeating, the proper thing to do would have been to suspend enforcement of the rules until such time as the contract issues between Bruce Kirby and laser performance could be solved or to simply tell laser performance, "your boats are illegal according to our rules and we do not know whethersomeone will decide to protest their use."

Instead the class took action to blow off the historical Kirby. I don't approve. I very much don't approve.

I think it's likely Kirby will get totally white washed in the lawsuit. Kirby is an old man; he may not even want to tell the lawsuit is over.

I would simply feel a whole lot better if the class association had said in public,"We stand with Bruce Kirby. He designed our boats. He made the class happen. It's likely he made the game happen. Any forever will have our appreciation and respect for having done so."

I certainly missed it if that was the class' intended communication.

Gouv,

I sympathize with your affection for Bruce Kirby. I really do. I am sure he is a great guy who has led a great life and is still having fun. He designed a bunch of fast I14 shapes and made some money from his craft by designing successful boats like the Laser, Sonar and Ideal 18. He sounds like a good man.

I worry that we sometimes forget to mention the amazing contribution to the Laser class and sailing in general by Ian Bruce. The Laser was his idea and concept. He called BK and asked him to draw the concept. It was a great partnership. One doesnt want to diminish Bruce in any way but dont forget that it was Ian who barnstormed around the country promoting the Laser and Ian that wrote the class rules with its emphasis on strict simple one design. It was Ian who invested the money in tooling and registered the Laser trademark.

Both Ian and Bruce should be remembered together for their historical contribution to the Laser.

BUT....and I'm afraid it is a big BUT

Class associations are not the right people to enforce contracts..

Bruce sold BKI. He sold it to a builder. Leaving aside the obvious conflicts of interest. By the time this reached the Class Association this had morphed into a major commercial dispute between 2 rival builders.

The role of the Class Association is to promote racing and the interests of the class owners. They should not and cannot get involved in trying to resolve a contractual dispute. I feel very strongly that the Class Association did exactly the right thing. It is what I would have advised them to do. The right place for a contractual dispute to be resolved is in the courts.

The Class Association does not have the resources or the skills to assemble the evidence and consider the merits that the various parties were claiming at the time. If it had acceded to the demands of either party to refuse plaques to one of the trade mark holders they would certainly have been sued and be facing a far more serious legal situation than they do now. They did the right thing. They really did.

They effectively told both parties. If you have a contract dispute, take it to court. In the meantime, pending resolution of your disputes, we are leaving each builder with exactly the same region that they always have had. You will have to sort out the money among yourselves. We encourage you to mediate. Failing that, take it to court and leave the sailors alone.

That is what has happened. It is a commercial dispute that has gone to court. Bruce is a more sympathetic figure than LP so folks can support Bruce in his commercial dispute with LP but dont attack the class.

The melges class association doesnt collect royalties on behalf of Reichel Pugh. The SB20 class Association doesnt collect royalties on behalf of Tony Castro. The Thistle Class doesnt collect royalties on behalf of Sandy Douglas. That is between builder and designer. BKI and the Spencers are big boys. They can defend their own interests. The Class should stay out of it and has done a pretty successful job of navigating through the weeds so far.

I am not in any business way related to the Laser Class Association, LP or Bruce Kirby. I own a Laser. I pay my class dues occasionaly. I have never served as a class officer.

 

[IPLore]

A more interesting topic of discussion is pondering the nature of the contractual dispute.

Gantt has advanced an argument that even if the Spencers did terminate the agreement between BKI and LP, the termination is invalid because the sale of BKI to the Spencers was not properly ratified. Gantt can enlarge on his argument and tell us why he think this nullifies any termination between BKI and LP?

This this brings us to the delightful topics of estoppel and ostensible authority.

BKI is a corporation. Corporations are legal entities that are represented by human beings that act as agents for that entity.

The principle of ostensible authority provides that where a reasonable person would assume that the agent of a corporation has authority to act, then the corporation is bound by the agent's action even if the agent had no actual authority. The ostensible authority creates an estoppel when the third party relies upon an assurance and it would be inequitable for the corporation or its principals to deny the authority of the action. The corporation is estopped from claiming that the agent had no authority to take the action.

If Bruce Kirby announced that he had sold BKI to the Spencers then it may be reasonable for a third party to assume that the Spencers had authority to act as agent for BKI, even if BKI had not in fact been sold to the Spencers .

I am sure that there will be discovery around this topic.



Many hundreds of pages back a poster called Dogwatch raised the very interesting issue of consideration in the original contract. It was an interesting point that got buried in a fruitless discussion about the copyright of the construction manual (there is none!). Have to rush although it would be interesting speculation.

Again, we dont have access to discovery so we dont have any answers, just questions. But at least we should be asking the right questions.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

IPLore, the ILCA is connected with the court case. Kirby is right to name the ILCA in this dispute because of the Agreement they have (or had) with Kirby, which is referenced in the builder's agreement. All the stuff IPLore says has never acknowledged that, rather, the stuff he says refocusses our attention away from these items, most recently with misrepresenting what I said regarding Kirby's sale to Global Sailing. It's compelling for me to respond to that by restating what I said previously, trying to be clearer, though that is exactly how IPLore is misdirecting these posts away from talking about the ILCA's agreements. IPLore is pretending that he has dealt with ILCA's involvement, and again is implying that ILCA's involvement is limited.

Gouv is right to say there is a big difference with how the ILCA treated Kirby and how the ILCA could have treated Kirby. IPLore's creative response does not get close to dealing with that difference.

IPLore, stating that there is no breech of an agreement between Kirby and ILCA because Kirby has not sued for breech of contract does not make sense. In fact, I'm coming to believe that it is yet another misdirection and IPLore is somehow wanting to protect the ILCA. IPLore pretending that he knows that I am anti ILCA may be a sign of that.

What I am saying (and what LPLore is either responding to or misdirecting us away from) is that the ILCA is attempting to invalidate the contracts. The reasons we can reach that view include (but is not limited to):

• We know that the IYRU Agreement exists, and was signed by Jeff Martin. (I expect that a number of this forum have read it.)
• We know that the ILCA said "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements.".
• We know that Kirby has said in his legal action that the ILCA are not providing information.
• We know that such provision of that information is a condition of the IYRU Agreement

For the ISAF it's simpler. Their statement released via their website says: "ISAF regards the recent announcement of the Kirby Torch dinghy as a fundamental breach of contractual arrangements between the parties concerned with the Laser class. ISAF has therefore exercised its right to end those arrangements and will negotiate new arrangements directly with the ILCA."

All of the above supports that the ILCA and ISAF are attempting to invalidate their agreement with Kirby. Perhaps the word should be terminate for ISAF, though with ILCA I think invalidate is more appropriate. It's worthy to note the differences between ISAF's and ILCA's respective approaches. None of what IPLore says counters the above.

The ILCA are involved with Kirby's legal action, and it interesting to read all the submissions and exhibits (eg, emails) that involve them, because we are definitely getting a clearer and clearer picture of what happened and the respective actions of the individuals involved.

The ILCA entered an agreement with Bruce Kirby. Whether or not that agreement is binding is important to the ILCA and therefore the Laser class. That agreement, because it is referenced in the builder's contracts is both relevant and important to Kirby's legal action.

 

[Wildwave]

IPlore : as you write, why is there no copyright in the construction manual ?

 

[JimC]

Too many distractions on this thread. Copyright on the builder manual won't be very important since one could rewrite the entire thing to end up with the same specifications in different words.

Similarly arguing about whether its right for the designer to receive royalties is utterly irrelevant.

What counts is the contracts and probably most especially termination clauses and conditions. The contracts all seem to overlap and interact with each other, presumably to create a situation where it was in everyone's interest to play nice and get along.

Result is now people have stopped playing nice it's very complicated.

 

[IPLore]

IPlore : as you write, why is there no copyright in the construction manual ?

1. The parties signed an agreement which made ISAF responsible for the construction manual.

2. You cannot copyright the use of a construction manual. Even if a copyright existed (which I doubt) it would only mean that the manual cannot be reproduced for sale. I previously gave the example of a cookery book. You cannot reprint Julia Child's book on French Cooking and then start selling the book, but you can use the recipes in the book as often as you like without any fear of breach of copyright. Furthermore, you can photocopy the book and the recipes for your own use. You can even photocopy the recipes and send them to friends as long as you dont ask for payment. I dont think we will see editions of the Laser Construction manual available for sale on Amazon any time soon.

3. It is unlikely that Bruce Kirby wrote the construction manual. I suspect the original manual was written by Ian Bruce or an employee or agent of Ian Bruce

4. What Jim C wrote.

5. The IYRU 1983 agreement stated that the confidential information in the construction manual belongs to the trade mark owner...which would include LP.

 

[Wess]

Ah, geeze, now you are going to prompt Canntt to come back and tell us all how ISAF is going to h*ll and this a contract dispute between BKI and ISAF and how BKI is winning that ISAF action handily.

It will be a long post and he will quote himself because if you quote yourself magic happens and a wrong becomes right.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Gouv,

I sympathize with your affection for Bruce Kirby. I really do. I am sure he is a great guy who has led a great life and is still having fun. He designed a bunch of fast I14 shapes and made some money from his craft by designing successful boats like the Laser, Sonar and Ideal 18. He sounds like a good man.

I worry that we sometimes forget to mention the amazing contribution to the Laser class and sailing in general by Ian Bruce. The Laser was his idea and concept. He called BK and asked him to draw the concept. It was a great partnership. One doesnt want to diminish Bruce in any way but dont forget that it was Ian who barnstormed around the country promoting the Laser and Ian that wrote the class rules with its emphasis on strict simple one design. It was Ian who invested the money in tooling and registered the Laser trademark.

Both Ian and Bruce should be remembered together for their historical contribution to the Laser.

BUT....and I'm afraid it is a big BUT

Class associations are not the right people to enforce contracts..

Bruce sold BKI. He sold it to a builder. Leaving aside the obvious conflicts of interest. By the time this reached the Class Association this had morphed into a major commercial dispute between 2 rival builders.

The role of the Class Association is to promote racing and the interests of the class owners. They should not and cannot get involved in trying to resolve a contractual dispute. I feel very strongly that the Class Association did exactly the right thing. It is what I would have advised them to do. The right place for a contractual dispute to be resolved is in the courts.

The Class Association does not have the resources or the skills to assemble the evidence and consider the merits that the various parties were claiming at the time. If it had acceded to the demands of either party to refuse plaques to one of the trade mark holders they would certainly have been sued and be facing a far more serious legal situation than they do now. They did the right thing. They really did.

They effectively told both parties. If you have a contract dispute, take it to court. In the meantime, pending resolution of your disputes, we are leaving each builder with exactly the same region that they always have had. You will have to sort out the money among yourselves. We encourage you to mediate. Failing that, take it to court and leave the sailors alone.

That is what has happened. It is a commercial dispute that has gone to court. Bruce is a more sympathetic figure than LP so folks can support Bruce in his commercial dispute with LP but dont attack the class.

The melges class association doesnt collect royalties on behalf of Reichel Pugh. The SB20 class Association doesnt collect royalties on behalf of Tony Castro. The Thistle Class doesnt collect royalties on behalf of Sandy Douglas. That is between builder and designer. BKI and the Spencers are big boys. They can defend their own interests. The Class should stay out of it and has done a pretty successful job of navigating through the weeds so far.

I am not in any business way related to the Laser Class Association, LP or Bruce Kirby. I own a Laser. I pay my class dues occasionaly. I have never served as a class officer.

The above is an interesting post by IPLore. The big picture is that he is urging Gouv not to "attack" the ILCA. Most of us know that Gouv has an axe to grind with the ILCA, so good luck with that IPLore.

There is no doubt in my mind that IPLore is not just asking not to "attack" the ILCA, but this is an attempt to steer everyone away from asking questions. My hope that any class association is run transparently and democratically in a way that it's robust enough to handle any criticism.

Back to the detail of IPLore's post.

IPLore wrote: "Class associations are not the right people to enforce contracts.. "

This is what Gouv originally wrote. I agree. In looking for relevance, is there an expectation for the ILCA to enforce Kirby's contract with any of the builders? Not that I can find. The closest I can find is that Kirby probably expected all parties to adhere to their signed agreements, including the ILCA.

IPLore wrote: "Bruce sold BKI. He sold it to a builder. Leaving aside the obvious conflicts of interest. By the time this reached the Class Association this had morphed into a major commercial dispute between 2 rival builders."

Whether or not BKI was sold has been explained previously by several, to summarise what's in Kirby's legal action (again) if the sale was legitimate, then it was reversed by the same mechanism by which it was made. If it is not found to be legitimate, then Bruce Kirby subsequently terminated Laser Performance's builder's contract anyway. It's clear (so far) that the requirements stipulated in the contract regarding the transfer of contracted rights were not met. The date of termination may impact the calculation of monies due to Kirby, as may the conditions of termination within the contract.

With the timing, according to the public information relating to the case there was a series of communications between the ILCA and Farzad Rastegar in March 2010. The culminated into meetings with the ILCA at Farzad Rastegar's request. It appears that the disputes surrounded but were not limited to the supply of boats into the Asian market, and who was to become the Asian builder of Lasers. This was prior to Global Sailing terminating Laser Performance's builder's agreement by several months.

IPLore wrote: "The role of the Class Association is to promote racing and the interests of the class owners. They should not and cannot get involved in trying to resolve a contractual dispute. I feel very strongly that the Class Association did exactly the right thing. It is what I would have advised them to do. The right place for a contractual dispute to be resolved is in the courts."

Remember, that this is in response to what Gouv said regarding that Kirby could have be treated better. IPLore, by saying that ILCA did the right thing is saying that was right to treat Kirby in the manner they did. IPLore by saying "exactly the right thing" that it was right of the ILCA to run the rule change as they did. It ignores Gouv's suggestion that it was not the only way that the ILCA could have acted.

IPLore wrote: "The Class Association does not have the resources or the skills to assemble the evidence and consider the merits that the various parties were claiming at the time. If it had acceded to the demands of either party to refuse plaques to one of the trade mark holders they would certainly have been sued and be facing a far more serious legal situation than they do now. They did the right thing. They really did."

The extent to which IPLore is pro ILCA's actions by this statement is revealing. The ILCA was never required to assemble evidence or to act as if it was a court. IPLore may well have been right about the ILCA being sued by Laser Performance. The language used between Heini Wellmann and Farzad Rastegar as evidenced in their email exchanges was at times terse.

IPLore wrote: "They effectively told both parties. If you have a contract dispute, take it to court. In the meantime, pending resolution of your disputes, we are leaving each builder with exactly the same region that they always have had. You will have to sort out the money among yourselves. We encourage you to mediate. Failing that, take it to court and leave the sailors alone."

Maybe, but this does not deal with legitimate concerns about the ILCA. It does not address questions of what ILCA's agreement was with Kirby, questions that can now be answered by looking at information in the public domain. For a number of sailors, including Gouv, they want to see a class association that performs better.

IPLore wrote: "That is what has happened."

Well, kind of IPLore, though aside from the factual inaccuracies IPLore's version is biased in favour of the ILCA. It is a verifiable fact that IPLore's posts are biased in favour of the ILCA.

IPLore wrote: "It is a commercial dispute that has gone to court. Bruce is a more sympathetic figure than LP so folks can support Bruce in his commercial dispute with LP but dont attack the class."

The legal action involves more than just Bruce Kirby and Laser Performance, it involves the ILCA and others. There are legitimate concerns that are being asked about the ILCA's involvement. These concerns are not an attack on the ILCA. They are about establishing what roles the ILCA has played which may or may not be relevant for the future of the Laser class.

IPLore wrote: "The melges class association doesnt collect royalties on behalf of Reichel Pugh. The SB20 class Association doesnt collect royalties on behalf of Tony Castro. The Thistle Class doesnt collect royalties on behalf of Sandy Douglas. That is between builder and designer.

Agreed. According to the builder's contract and the submissions before the courts, the ILCA does not collect Royalties on behalf of Bruce Kirby. It's wrong of IPLore to imply otherwise.

IPLore wrote: "BKI and the Spencers are big boys. They can defend their own interests. The Class should stay out of it and has done a pretty successful job of navigating through the weeds so far."

The ILCA were already involved with the dispute. They became more involved by the way they changed the fundamental rule, and aside from whether or not it was the right or wrong action to take, there are legitimate concerns about the ILCA.

IPLore wrote: "I am not in any business way related to the Laser Class Association, LP or Bruce Kirby. I own a Laser. I pay my class dues occasionaly. I have never served as a class officer."

We are left in no doubt that IPLore's position on the ILCA is anything but neutral from what he has posted.

It occurs to me that as Gouv figured large in increasing the membership of NA-ILCA a few years back, to speculate if the issues that he experienced were because someone was playing the bigger game against his success. If that's true (it's a pretty big if), was anyone at risk of losing out if Gouv was invited to run the ILCA in the same way? If found to be true, this does not implicate all of the ILCA's executive.


But back to IPLore. IPLore later wrote in his next post: "Again, we dont have access to discovery so we dont have any answers, just questions. But at least we should be asking the right questions."

Access to all of the discovery does not mean 'we' don't have 'any answers'. I have seen sufficient information to reach my own conclusions that Kirby had agreements with the ILCA and that those agreements were signed by Jeff Martin, and as a result of that and other information, there are legitimate concerns about the ILCA. Here's some access to correspondence that speaks to the level of information that is available, and may be of interest:
https://ia601604.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.58.1.pdf

Discovery is not yet complete.

The role of IPLore's 166 posts in this forum so far is less about progressing legitimate concerns about the ILCA, and more about obfuscating the role of the ILCA.

I agree that people who care about the Laser class should be asking the right questions.

And some of the right questions are about the ILCA.

 

[ojfd]

Gantt, your pro-Kirby and anti-ILCA propoganda is annoying.