Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[IPLore]

Wess, Tillerman, SimonN, Dogwatch, Eye, Otterbox, JimC, RMK, PhilS, Gouv, sosoomii and others,

It is utterly pointless to have a sensible discussion of the case and the possible outcomes with Gantt's participation. Whatever his motives, whether unethical, prejudiced or merely incompetent....he sabotages the discussion by turning a simple one page discussion into 10 pages of drivel. He has succeeded in driving away most of the interesting contributors from both sides of the debate. Those that support Kirby are embarrassed. Neutral but interested participants cannot follow the pages and pages of irrelevancy. Those who take a contrary view are insulted and respond with music to soothe their souls. The thread descends a series of music videos.

You have to wonder if Gantt has succeeded in his objectives.

So, for those who wonder about the contractual dispute...the very core and meat of the case. We dont have enough public information.

HOWEVER, it is my educated guess that a great part of the case...and the lines that will be drawn in settlement discussions ...will revolve around post termination obligations of the builders agreements.

That can be affected by a great deal of factual discovery and is never as simple as simply referring to the agreement.

Here are some of the issues that may be at play:

1. What type of termination? " Termination for Cause". Notice not to renew after expiry (a subset of "termination for convenience") or even "Wrongful Termination". BKI will be arguing that it was Termination for Cause. LP might be arguing (from gist of counterclaim) that it was wrongful termination.

They will both be arguing over the implications of termination for convenience....and there is a lot to argue about.

(It will be an important fact whether Global Sailing terminated the 1983 agreement and its extensions)

2. Clean Hands vs Unclean Hands. . My guess is that each will be arguing that the other had unclean hands.

3. The language and the representations in the amendments (extending the original agreements) and whether the representations and the corresponding termination clauses survived those amendments. I have previously commented that the language in those amendments was IMO, sloppy. This creates further uncertainty.

But I think it best to wait and see, because frankly, who wants or needs to deal with lawnmowers

 

[tillerman]

You know, it's more than a little annoying that a small group of you have posted so much noise that trying to find the signal is impossible. Have a week off and try and get laid.

That's my plan!

 

[Bruce Hudson]

If the case is be discussed logically, that will necessarily include the ILCA. The rest of us have finished discussing the case against the ILCA. We have moved on with errors, and incomplete discussions interlaced with many irrelevant posts. That is not a satisfactory conclusion by any measure. Independent of SA I am corresponding with others who think there is more to explore about the ILCA.

1) The action against ILCA does not hinge on tortious interference alone

The case against the ILCA does not hinge on much at all. It is pretty much DOA. The primary claim is tortious interference but as previously explained, the claim is very weak.

It is IPLore's opinion that the case does not hinge on much at all. It's easy to forget that the title here is how the case against the ILCA does not hinge on tortious interference alone.

There are also claims of publicity rights and trademark for issuing plaques with Bruce Kirby's name on it. ISAF produced the plaques and LP affixed the plaques. ISAF has been dismissed from the case. We discussed this earlier. ISAF being dismissed from the case is irrelevant to whether or not Kirby case hinges on tortious interference alone. Please go back and read the relevant posts, where I explained publicity rights and how this might play a role in the case. However it will not provide a meaningful basis for a claim vs the ILCA because of (a) Acquiescence and ( B) When BK complained about his trademark ISAF removed his name. Prior to that the ISAF agreement required his name on the plaque. This is not relevant to the point being discussed.

From the case:

73. Notwithstanding the notification provided by Kirby to ISAF and ILCA as set out in paragraphs 66-67, ISAF and ILCA have continued to issue ISAF Plaques to terminated builder Quarter Moon/QM Vanguard, as evidenced by a copy of the shipping notification attached as Exhibit 17.
74. ISAF and ILCA have told Kirby that they will continue to issue ISAF Plaques to terminated builders Quarter Moon/QM Vanguard and PSE/LP Europe until a court tells ILCA and ISAF not to issue plaques or tells the terminated builders not to make and sell Kirby Sailboats. This is a statement of alleged facts not a claim. This is a very small point IPLore is making. Actually, the claims state "...repeats the allegations made 1-119..." and it is relevant to the subsequent points - which is why I included it. I'm unclear why IPLore is keen to make the statement that these are not claims or alleged facts. Exhibit 17 makes them compelling.

and

Claim VI
Default The Builder Agreements
120. Kirby repeats the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-119.
121. ISAF and ILCA have continued to issue ISAF Plaques to Quarter Moon/QM Vanguard and PSE/LP Europe after they stopped paying royalties and providing written reports of their sales to Kirby. As a result, Quarter Moon/QM Vanguard and PSE/LP Europe were able to manufacture and sell unauthorized Kirby Sailboats bearing ISAF Plaques without fulfilling their obligations to Kirby under the 1983 and 1989 Builder Agreements. ISAF and ILCA’s actions induced Quarter Moon/QM Vanguard and PSE/LP Europe to default on those Agreements.
122. As a result of Quarter Moon/QM Vanguard and PSE/LP Europe’s failure to pay royalties or provide written reports, Kirby notified them of their default and subsequently terminated the 1983 and 1989 Builder Agreements.
123. Subsequent to termination, ILCA and ISAF have continued to issue ISAF Plaques to the terminated builders. As a result, the terminated builders have been able to continue to manufacture and sell unauthorized Kirby Sailboats, in violation of the termination provisions of the 1983 and 1989 Builder Agreements. ISAF and ILCA’s actions induced Quarter Moon/QM Vanguard and PSE/LP Europe to default on the termination provisions of the 1983 and 1989 Builder Agreements.
124. Upon information and belief, ISAF and ILCA’s inducement of PSE/LP Europe and Quarter Moon/QM Vanguard’s to default on the Builder Agreements was intentional.
125. The induced default of the 1983 and 1989 Builder Agreements have materially damaged Kirby for at least the reason that they have deprived him of royalties, interest, and post termination rights to which he is entitled.
126. Kirby has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of the induced default of the 1983 and 1989 Builder Agreements and has no adequate remedy at law.

Note that the above claim is not based on tortious interference. IPLore's statement that the Kirby's claim based on tortious interference will fail of his opinion relates to only one claim being made by Kirby against the ILCA.

I have to award you another three "smart as lawn mower" awards for that paragraph. The above claim is a claim of tortious interference. "Inducement to default on a contract" aka "tortious interference" !!!!!!

No.

We are discussing whether this is tortious interference alone. It's not. IPLore seems to be saying that the only interpretation is tortious interference, and necessary to that is proof of malice.

Is it possible that this will be seen by the court as anything beyond tortious interference? Of course it is!

Why is it that there is a specific claim for tortuous interference separate to this one? It's clear that Kirby's lawyer thinks it important to make this claim separately, without mention of tortious interference.

One clue is in the remedies that Kirby asks for. If this was tortious interference alone, then the Kirby Action would read very differently, and may concentrate on damages alone. Instead, Kirby asks for an order for the ILCA to no longer issue plaques to terminated builders.


__________________________________________________________________________________

2) Royalties do not stop in 2025, or are not guaranteed until that date

Wess made the statement:

I think we agree the Kirby fight is less about pre-2025, and more about post 2025... and likely about something other than 2% because as IPL and others have pointed out that royalty is not material even long term and if it was just that, this case would have settled long ago or never happened. http://forums.sailin...dpost&p=5378669


This is based on Wess's idea that the contracts expired in 2025. IPLore attempted to explain this by saying:

"Five years ago, Bruce Kirby had a set of reasonably iron clad contracts guaranteeing him a royalty on the Laser until 2025" - This is correct. The North American contract provided him a guaranteed royalty until 2025. There is no guarantee beyond 2025. After 2025 both contracts would be on renewal and that renewal would depend to a large extent on the Class Association. Of course, the contract could have been renewed but the point we were making was that the North American royalty income ran until 2025 based on the contract independent of the class rule. http://forums.sailin...dpost&p=5384297


Both are contradicted by the 1983 and 1989 builder's contract which do not expire or terminate in 2025. I completely give up on you. The 1989 contract has an initial term which expires in 2025. There after it relies on renewal. You are beyond repetitive and probably beyond redemption.
I understand that you have changed what you are saying IPLore, though frustratingly, without acknowledging that you mislead Wess and others to think that royalties were guaranteed until 2025 - or expired then (as he interpreted it).

Further, the contracts do not rely on renewal. The contract automatically renews annually unless otherwise agreed. In attempting to state 'case closed', and in so doing have repeated your mistake.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

3) It matters where a boat is built Aaargh. Only LP North America was licensed to sell Lasers in North America. The agreement was with the predecessor of LPNA. It would not have mattered where LPNA made the boats. If LPNA got permission to make boats in Kuala Lumpa, LPNA would still have been obliged to pay its contractual obligation on each boat.
LPNA did not get permission to build in "Kuala Lumpa" (or Kuala Lumpur).

Yes, LPNA are obligated to pay royalties on each boat manufactures and sold as per the contract. Raising this does not address the error you made.

It's clear from the clauses which you have deleted how the agreements work, and that permission must be granted before building commences in other locations. Specifically, there are clauses that outline why builder a cannot build anywhere.

IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT YOU ARE WRONG IPLORE IN STATING THAT LOCATION OF LASER BUILDERS DOES NOT MATTER.

YOU NEED TO STOP GETTING BOGGED DOWN IN IRRELEVANT DETAIL WHERE YOU THINK YOU HAVE A "GOTCHA" ON ONE OF THE SENSIBLE CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS THREAD. YOU ARE USUALLY WRONG AND ALWAYS ANNOYING.

I bet it is very annoying to have someone check what you are saying against facts, then respond to you.

Whether or not you judge me as sensible is not relevant. I have attempted in good faith to outline where you have made errors IPLore. I have done so without the making of personal attacks. I would welcome you doing the same, so we can increase the signal and decrease the noise.

May I suggest that IPLore you are more thorough in checking your own facts before posting information in error, which has been demonstrated to mislead other readers as in the case of Wess with 2025 above.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

References to the contracts

Copies of the contracts can be found here: https://www.docdroid...ndices.pdf.html
_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

[ojfd]

It is utterly pointless to have a sensible discussion of the case and the possible outcomes with Gantt's participation.

Just put him on ignore and do not reply to his posts. Simple as that.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

It is utterly pointless to have a sensible discussion of the case and the possible outcomes with Gantt's participation. Whatever his motives, whether unethical, prejudiced or merely incompetent....he sabotages the discussion by turning a simple one page discussion into 10 pages of drivel. He has succeeded in driving away most of the interesting contributors from both sides of the debate. Those that support Kirby are embarrassed. Neutral but interested participants cannot follow the pages and pages of irrelevancy. Those who take a contrary view are insulted and respond with music to soothe their souls. The thread descends a series of music videos.

I take full responsibility for my part for posting in response to personal attacks and general harassment, the latest personal attack evidenced in the above rhetoric from IPLore.

IPLore has never conceded to making a mistake on this thread. There are ample examples of errors made by IPLore. I am not the only person who has pointed out IPLore's errors, though I am the most recent.

IPLore has posted consistently in the favor of the ILCA. It would seem that the biggest error I have made has been to question the ILCAs actions. This has seen IPLore consistently attempt to drive the discussion away from the ILCA while personally attacking me. Most recently, IPLore has announced that "The rest of us have finished discussing the case against the ILCA. We have moved on".

IPLore has lied blatently about what I said, in an attempt to discredit me. http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=145562&view=findpost&p=5366870

_______________________________________________

I had a choice.

Either back down or fight back.

I made a decision not to back down.

I will continue to check IPLore's facts, and post where it is plain to me then IPLore is attempting to spread misinformation, or making untrue statements.

 

[Wess]

It is utterly pointless to have a sensible discussion of the case and the possible outcomes with Gantt's participation.

Just put him on ignore and do not reply to his posts. Simple as that.

IPL - See above. OJFD has it exactly right. Use the block function for PMs and the ignore function for the forums. Don't quote him. Its not like anyone else is supporting him. The noise goes away going forward if you do this.

If you really want a more serious discussion without any noise, take it off line. I dropped you a PM; chat there.

Better yet take the conversation off SA so other rational folks can participate. There are various other moderated forums or chat groups discussing this where you don't have to deal with the insanity and lies here.

This thread used to just be funny. He lied and had so much so wrong I assumed it had to be a joke or game. But its become clear he not only believes but is perhaps a bit unstable (or really desperate) given the suicide references. Either way, at that point its not funny any more. This can be professionally interesting from a deal structure standpoint around IP if you are into that kinda thing, but beyond that lets be serious, it does not really matter... well other than to one individual who seems more invested than is healthy and I don't see any point to contributing to his downward spiral.

Life is much more peaceful and intelligent when you block and ignore him and better yet if nobody quotes him.

Its not like you are saving the world. All he is going to do is cut and paste the same wrong answer over and over again. Anyone with the slightest intelligence can judge his input on the merits.

Anyway, he wants the last word. Let him have it. Put him on ignore, start another thread for settlement discussions and pray he does not follow there. If so just go to any moderated forum where they would toss him instantly.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

This thread used to just be funny. He lied and had so much so wrong I assumed it had to be a joke or game. But its become clear he not only believes but is perhaps a bit unstable (or really desperate) given the suicide references. Either way, at that point its not funny any more. This can be professionally interesting from a deal structure standpoint around IP if you are into that kinda thing, but beyond that lets be serious, it does not really matter... well other than to one individual who seems more invested than is healthy and I don't see any point to contributing to his downward

I guess Wess's idea of a joke is repeating over and over that I lie, but not saying how I lie or providing me a chance to retract.

When people personally attack and generally harass others, it's called cyberbullying. When this was pointed out to Wess that this practice often spills over to real life (In another thread - I cited research), suddenly it's no longer funny?

I've got news for you Wess, it never was funny.

Again you have called me a liar - which appears to be a baseless accusation which has me responding again.

Take a good look in the mirror Wess. Shame on you.

 

[JimC]

It seems utterly pointless to attempt a sensible discussion of the case and the possible outcomes with Gantt, IPlore, Wess and Tiller man's participation.

Put the 4 of them on ignore, as I just have, and the last few pages just disappear into hidden boxes. Its a shame because the topic is important, but what with the spamming with stupid videos, the endless repetition, the deliberate trolling - Wess being a particular culprit - the thread is now worthless. Should the judge ever decide to do his job it will probably be best to start a new thread. Tiller man I would have expected better from, that's disappointing.

 

[tillerman]

For JimC - You Won't See Me

 

[Wess]

Its all good JimC. You are of course free to ignore whomever you like or even the whole thread. Regardless I promise I will continue to carefully consider your insights such as "your legal system is broken" and "the judge is not doing his job" (paraphrase not intended as a direct quote) for the how many times...

* I am curious if you would you feel the same way if there were active settlement discussions and the parties themselves wanted the delay?

I would suggest you don't ignore IPLore. He may be the only one who has not cracked under the weight of all the BS and while joking on rare occasion and posting a music video (once) his input is rock solid. Take it for what its worth but I do participate in some moderated profession chat groups/forums that are having serious discussions about the topic and I gotta say there is a lot posted that aligns with IPL's views and nobody is posting anything of any kind that supports the views of HWCBN.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

It seems utterly pointless to attempt a sensible discussion of the case and the possible outcomes with Gantt, IPlore, Wess and Tiller man's participation.

Put the 4 of them on ignore, as I just have, and the last few pages just disappear into hidden boxes. Its a shame because the topic is important, but what with the spamming with stupid videos, the endless repetition, the deliberate trolling - Wess being a particular culprit - the thread is now worthless. Should the judge ever decide to do his job it will probably be best to start a new thread. Tiller man I would have expected better from, that's disappointing.

+1

I agree that a new thread should be started.

And that all four (including me) should be 'put on ignore'. The issue may become one of identifying the same user's sock puppets.

I was surprised and disappointed with Tiller Man as well. FYI, Tillerman is now liking and commenting on comments I have placed on friend's Facebook posts.

My intention with the ILCA was always to ask tough questions which were not being asked. Many of those questions still need to be dealt with by the ILCA, who appear to be preparing to defend themselves against Kirby.

What's a shame is that 'the other three' have to some extent, successfully created the false impression that I am 'anti ILCA'. I am not. A trigger point for me was IPLore asking me to apologize to Jeff and Heini. If anyone cares look at what I have said regarding both, compare it with the allegations of me using hateful language against either, they will understand what I am saying.

 

[tillerman]

Looks like this thread has blown itself up.

Everybody is ignoring everybody else.

Well done HWCBN.

So it's time to say goodbye.

 

[LMI]

I don't ignore anyone but I am trying to figure out which of you is Fred's sock puppet.

Love the holiday colors earlier. Very cute. You boys decorated the place for me like its Christmas in July.

 

[LMI]

If you are in a Laser discussion and don't know who Fred is, and that he outed himself years ago, you are the lame minded idiot.

It does appear you would fit in nicely with some expressing opinion on this topic.

 

[LMI]

How many do you have?

 

[RMK]

​Maybe sock puppets are the answer. If Wes, Tillerman, Gouv could post their answers to Gannt and their videos under a sock puppet and their real comments under their regular id then those that don't want to read all that "stuff" could put the sock puppets on ignore and still see stuff that's related to the topic?

 

[Wavedancer II]

Is this appropriate?

 

[Wess]

Can't answer what I cann't see but I don't need a sock-puppets to do it regardless; I always post my own videos, LOL. And though I have been accused of being them (which I guess makes one of us a sock puppet) and others, I don't think IPL or TM have puppets here either. And hey, I like the music. Even HWCBN's (though I can't see it/listen anymore). Gouv's music on the other hand was really bad and I applaud him for deleting it but I don't want to ignore him.

Most of the serious discussion I am aware of is now on PMs or other non-SA moderated forums. No lawn mower noise and folks who understand what sold, and paid for, means.

 

[ojfd]

Gouv's music on the other hand was really bad and I applaud him for deleting it ...

Wess, to be honest, your and TM's tracks are not in any way better, btw. We have year 2016 now. If you absolutely must post some videos, post at least some fresh stuff.

 

[Wess]

Gouv's music on the other hand was really bad and I applaud him for deleting it ...

Wess, to be honest, your and TM's tracks are not in any way better, btw. We have year 2016 now. If you absolutely must post some videos, post at least some fresh stuff.

Yea, my kids would agree with you. I am old and my taste in music shows it but I thought TM has posted some more recent stuff.

But mine were no better than Gouv's?

#Harsh!

They ain't much but at least my internet lawyering skills are superior to his.

And that other dude's BS and hype...