Stand up in Court?

[Flyingmonk]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/KOLB-MK-III-WITH-JABIRU-SEAPLANE-AIRCRAFT_W0QQitemZ4616708116QQcategoryZ26438QQrdZ1 QQcmdZViewItem

or http://makeashorterlink.com/?B6E5245BC

"I would like to have a waiver sighed by the buyer,you are buying this
as a NON-FLYING AIRCRAFT(you will have to install the prop, to make it
flyable) Just for liability."

Would a statement like the above or a waiver stand up in a court of law
to keep the seller from losing in court? ...or would this be
considered a way to skirt the law?

The Monk

[BTIZ]

I am not lawyer......
But one would think.. that any statement in the sales contract that states
that "the buyer understands that the aircraft is currently not airworthy and
the buyer is responsible to make it airworthy if he desires" would be
enough.

I would not stipulate any items that renders it un airworthy, that would or
could imply that repairing those items only would render the aircraft
airworthy, any thing else that is found out that needs to be repaired after
the sale to make it airworthy, the buyer "might" have some recourse against
the seller for non disclosure.

But as always, "let the buyer beware".
BT

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/KOLB-MK-III-WITH-JABIRU-SEAPLANE-AIRCRAFT_W0QQitemZ4616708116QQcategoryZ26438QQrdZ1 QQcmdZViewItem
>
> or http://makeashorterlink.com/?B6E5245BC
>
> "I would like to have a waiver sighed by the buyer,you are buying this
> as a NON-FLYING AIRCRAFT(you will have to install the prop, to make it
> flyable) Just for liability."
>
> Would a statement like the above or a waiver stand up in a court of law
> to keep the seller from losing in court? ...or would this be
> considered a way to skirt the law?
>
> The Monk
>

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/KOLB-MK-III-WITH-JABIRU-SEAPLANE-AIRCRAFT_W0QQitemZ4616708116QQcategoryZ26438QQrdZ1 QQcmdZViewItem
>
> or http://makeashorterlink.com/?B6E5245BC
>
> "I would like to have a waiver sighed by the buyer,you are buying this
> as a NON-FLYING AIRCRAFT(you will have to install the prop, to make it
> flyable) Just for liability."
>
> Would a statement like the above or a waiver stand up in a court of law
> to keep the seller from losing in court? ...or would this be
> considered a way to skirt the law?
>

I ain't no lawyer, but if I were sitting on a Jury, it wouldn't be hard to
convince me that the intent was to sell a flying airplane, not a static
display...

Read the ad: "Cruises about 80 mph. This plane is a rocket off the water, I
took first last year in a short takeoff contest, I was off the water in 3.5
sec."
"One float has a very slight bow in the top rail, it does not affect its
performance, or airworthyness. "

He's advertising how well it flys. He says it's airworthy.

And from his E-Bay store "I am acertified ROTAX service center, and A&P, I
buy and sell Rotax parts new and used. I specialize in good used ROTAX 2
cycle engines of all kinds for ULTRALIGHT and EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. I also
buy and sell ULTRALIGHT and EXPERIMENT AIRCRAFT and sell parts for the same,
as well as FLOATS."
From a past sale: "I will Fly, Hover, Sled, or whatever behind any engine I
sell and I sell a lot of them"

Now, he says: "I would like to have a waiver sighed by the buyer,you are
buying this as a NON-FLYING AIRCRAFT(you will have to install the prop, to
make it flyable) Just for liability."

Now, why is he so concerned about liabiity on THIS aircraft? Is there some
defect that he is trying to cover up? Probably not, but I bet some fast
talking lawyer would try to convince a jury of that.

Of course, if I were on a jury, I personally wouldn't assume that just
because there was an accident (assuming that at some time there is an
accident and things end up in court) that it's somehow the original builders
fault for building an airplane that could be crashed. But that's me.

True story: I work in an office building on the ring road around the
parking lot for a large mall (one of several office buildings . A lot of
people, for whatever reason, like to park in the mall's lot and walk across
the street. The mall parking never fills, no big deal. Right? Monday morning
mail was sent to everyone in the building stating that effective a couple
days before, anyone parking in the mall lot would be ticketed and possibly
have the vehicle towed. Why? As it turns out, someone in another building
had parked in the mall lot, and got hit by a car as they crossed the street
to their office building and sued the mall for damages... Now, I don't know
the details, but personally, if you are careless enough to get hit by a car,
the fault lies with you and/or the person driving. Not a stupid shopping
mall...

The point being, there is no telling what someone will sue for, eh?

But, the real question is, why is our favorite monk shilling for this guy?
(Just kidding. Really,)


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[The Visitor]

I don't know how well it works, but it sure is common on kits and
homebuilts.

Flyingmonk wrote:

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/KOLB-MK-III-WITH-JABIRU-SEAPLANE-AIRCRAFT_W0QQitemZ4616708116QQcategoryZ26438QQrdZ1 QQcmdZViewItem
>
> or http://makeashorterlink.com/?B6E5245BC
>
> "I would like to have a waiver sighed by the buyer,you are buying this
> as a NON-FLYING AIRCRAFT(you will have to install the prop, to make it
> flyable) Just for liability."
>
> Would a statement like the above or a waiver stand up in a court of law
> to keep the seller from losing in court? ...or would this be
> considered a way to skirt the law?
>
> The Monk
>

[Skywise]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
news:Qvadnd8SbfEjaZzZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

<Snipola>
> Of course, if I were on a jury, I personally wouldn't assume that just
> because there was an accident (assuming that at some time there is an
> accident and things end up in court) that it's somehow the original
> builders fault for building an airplane that could be crashed. But
> that's me.

Of course, the moment the attorneys found out you were a pilot
you'd be dismissed from selection on this case. Can't go having
peopel that actually KNOW something about the subject they are
deciding on. So much for "jury of your peers."


> True story: I work in an office building on the ring road around the
<Snipola>
> The point being, there is no telling what someone will sue for, eh?

Yep. Long story short. I was riding a motorcycle and a guy pulled
that infamous opposing left turn trick on me. I missed hitting him,
but my momentum caused me to slide just into the lane next to me,
whereupon a car coming up behind me in that lane clipped the
handlebars and flipped me. I had already stopped and he was going
like maybe 10 mph max when he hit. I was not injured.

Guess who tried to sue who? Yep. The guy in the car that hit me,
they guy on the motorcyle, tried to sue me and they guy that cut
me off for "medical expenses."

I let my insurance company take care of it. In hindsight, and being
much wiser about such things, I would not have just handed it to my
insurance for them to just pay the guy off. If it were to happen
today, I would find any way within my power to make the guys life as
miserable as possible for filing such a blatently obviously frivolous
lawsuit.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[John Gaquin]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
>
> "I would like to have a waiver sighed by the buyer,you are buying this
> as a NON-FLYING AIRCRAFT(you will have to install the prop, to make it
> flyable) Just for liability."
>
> Would a statement like the above or a waiver stand up in a court of law
> to keep the seller from losing in court?

Losing what? Are you anticipating legal ramifications in this transaction?

> ...or would this be
> considered a way to skirt the law?

...."considered..."??? It is *obviously* a ploy to circumvent
responsibility. I can't speak for anyone else, but if I were on a jury and
you tried to weasel around by trotting out that kind of document, my
"Presumption of Guilt-o- Meter" would take about a half second to hit
redline.

[Dave Stadt]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/KOLB-MK-III-WITH-JABIRU-SEAPLANE-AIRCRAFT_W0QQitemZ4616708116QQcategoryZ26438QQrdZ1 QQcmdZViewItem
>
> or http://makeashorterlink.com/?B6E5245BC
>
> "I would like to have a waiver sighed by the buyer,you are buying this
> as a NON-FLYING AIRCRAFT(you will have to install the prop, to make it
> flyable) Just for liability."
>
> Would a statement like the above or a waiver stand up in a court of law
> to keep the seller from losing in court? ...or would this be
> considered a way to skirt the law?
>
> The Monk


Won't work. It is not the buyer you need to worry about but the buyers
survivors. One can sign away their own rights but not the rights for
another and nothing you can do will protect you 100% from the buyers
survivors. What some home builders do if they are the builder of record is
part the plane and make sure the parts go to different buyers and that none
of them include the airworthyness certificate or registration.

[Aluckyguess]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
> news:Qvadnd8SbfEjaZzZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
>
> <Snipola>
>> Of course, if I were on a jury, I personally wouldn't assume that just
>> because there was an accident (assuming that at some time there is an
>> accident and things end up in court) that it's somehow the original
>> builders fault for building an airplane that could be crashed. But
>> that's me.
>
> Of course, the moment the attorneys found out you were a pilot
> you'd be dismissed from selection on this case. Can't go having
> peopel that actually KNOW something about the subject they are
> deciding on. So much for "jury of your peers."
>
Funny you say this I was called in for jury duty the other day and the DA
dismissed 2 nurses because they might understand how blood was taken for a
blood test on Heroin. I was shocked and made me thing the guy was innocent.
The judge also went on on how cheap companies are that don't pay for jury
duty. He doesn't understand the company cant raise prices like they raise
taxes.
He was a moron I almost blurted out, have you ever had to make payroll and
wondered where the money was coming from.
>
>> True story: I work in an office building on the ring road around the
> <Snipola>
>> The point being, there is no telling what someone will sue for, eh?
>
> Yep. Long story short. I was riding a motorcycle and a guy pulled
> that infamous opposing left turn trick on me. I missed hitting him,
> but my momentum caused me to slide just into the lane next to me,
> whereupon a car coming up behind me in that lane clipped the
> handlebars and flipped me. I had already stopped and he was going
> like maybe 10 mph max when he hit. I was not injured.
>
> Guess who tried to sue who? Yep. The guy in the car that hit me,
> they guy on the motorcyle, tried to sue me and they guy that cut
> me off for "medical expenses."
>
> I let my insurance company take care of it. In hindsight, and being
> much wiser about such things, I would not have just handed it to my
> insurance for them to just pay the guy off. If it were to happen
> today, I would find any way within my power to make the guys life as
> miserable as possible for filing such a blatently obviously frivolous
> lawsuit.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Aluckyguess]

> Won't work. It is not the buyer you need to worry about but the buyers
> survivors. One can sign away their own rights but not the rights for
> another and nothing you can do will protect you 100% from the buyers
> survivors. What some home builders do if they are the builder of record
> is part the plane and make sure the parts go to different buyers and that
> none of them include the airworthyness certificate or registration.
So if you build a homebuilt you cant sell it. There should be some changes
made in these laws.
>

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> So if you build a homebuilt you cant sell it. There should be some changes
> made in these laws.
>>

You can sell it. But there is no way to guarantee that if someone wrecks it,
and if there is some way (real or contrived) to blame you (the builder or
previous owner), that you won't end up in court. No different than selling a
used car - particularly if you have ever done your own maintenance. "Why did
you install defective brakes?" "Are you a certified automobile mechanic?"
"What made you think you were qualified to replace the tie rod?" blah blah
blah...

Or, letting someone else use your car (depending on the state, the OWNER can
be liable for damages if some other driver has an accident.) Did you send
your kid off to college with a car that is in your name? Does your kid let
anyone borrow it? Think about it.

On the other hand.

Change the laws? Do you protect someone who sold an airplane because he
realized that it wasn't safe and just wanted to get his money back? Even if
you didn't know it was defective, should you not be liable if you screwed
up? What about the poor people that died because you used a hardware store
bolt to attach the wings?

It a no-win situation when there is an accident. Once lawyers and juries get
involved, common sense goes out the window. Just don't be the one with the
deep pockets.

:-(

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Grumman-581]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
...
> It a no-win situation when there is an accident. Once lawyers and juries
get
> involved, common sense goes out the window. Just don't be the one with the
> deep pockets.

http://www.geocities.com/grumman581/lawyer-problem-solution.htm

[Skywise]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in
:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
>> news:Qvadnd8SbfEjaZzZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
>>
>> <Snipola>
>>> Of course, if I were on a jury, I personally wouldn't assume that just
>>> because there was an accident (assuming that at some time there is an
>>> accident and things end up in court) that it's somehow the original
>>> builders fault for building an airplane that could be crashed. But
>>> that's me.
>>
>> Of course, the moment the attorneys found out you were a pilot
>> you'd be dismissed from selection on this case. Can't go having
>> peopel that actually KNOW something about the subject they are
>> deciding on. So much for "jury of your peers."
>>
> Funny you say this I was called in for jury duty the other day and the
> DA dismissed 2 nurses because they might understand how blood was taken
> for a blood test on Heroin. I was shocked and made me thing the guy was
> innocent. The judge also went on on how cheap companies are that don't
> pay for jury duty. He doesn't understand the company cant raise prices
> like they raise taxes.
> He was a moron I almost blurted out, have you ever had to make payroll
> and wondered where the money was coming from.

I wonder if I'd have had the same restraint. The last time I was
called to jury duty was quite some time ago. Since then I've gotten
a lot smarter about quite a few things, and worst of all, I've
taken to studying skepticism and critical thinking.

I'm afraid I'd make a very bad juror because I can't not think.

If I ever get a jury duty notice, I'm going to have fun writing the
letter about why I won't be showing up, so don't bother insisting.
It may become an issue, though, as I understand in my county, in
order to get dismissed, you have to show up and explain to the
judge in person why you should be dismissed.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Aluckyguess]

>>>
>>> Of course, the moment the attorneys found out you were a pilot
>>> you'd be dismissed from selection on this case. Can't go having
>>> people that actually KNOW something about the subject they are
>>> deciding on. So much for "jury of your peers."
>>>
>> Funny you say this I was called in for jury duty the other day and the
>> DA dismissed 2 nurses because they might understand how blood was taken
>> for a blood test on Heroin. I was shocked and made me thing the guy was
>> innocent. The judge also went on on how cheap companies are that don't
>> pay for jury duty. He doesn't understand the company cant raise prices
>> like they raise taxes.
>> He was a moron I almost blurted out, have you ever had to make payroll
>> and wondered where the money was coming from.
>
> I wonder if I'd have had the same restraint. The last time I was
> called to jury duty was quite some time ago. Since then I've gotten
> a lot smarter about quite a few things, and worst of all, I've
> taken to studying skepticism and critical thinking.
>
> I'm afraid I'd make a very bad juror because I can't not think.
>
> If I ever get a jury duty notice, I'm going to have fun writing the
> letter about why I won't be showing up, so don't bother insisting.
> It may become an issue, though, as I understand in my county, in
> order to get dismissed, you have to show up and explain to the
> judge in person why you should be dismissed.
>
> Brian
> --
>I actually wanted to get on the jury. I have to go back Monday they where
>10 minutes from finishing and didn't want to pay the bailiff overtime. Now
>he has to pay everyone 15 dollars to show up one more day.

[Dave Stadt]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>> Won't work. It is not the buyer you need to worry about but the buyers
>> survivors. One can sign away their own rights but not the rights for
>> another and nothing you can do will protect you 100% from the buyers
>> survivors. What some home builders do if they are the builder of record
>> is part the plane and make sure the parts go to different buyers and that
>> none of them include the airworthyness certificate or registration.
> So if you build a homebuilt you cant sell it. There should be some changes
> made in these laws.


You can sell it but if you are the builder of record you carry the same
liability as Cessna, Piper, Grumman, etc.

[Aluckyguess]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Won't work. It is not the buyer you need to worry about but the buyers
>>> survivors. One can sign away their own rights but not the rights for
>>> another and nothing you can do will protect you 100% from the buyers
>>> survivors. What some home builders do if they are the builder of record
>>> is part the plane and make sure the parts go to different buyers and
>>> that none of them include the airworthyness certificate or registration.
>> So if you build a homebuilt you cant sell it. There should be some
>> changes made in these laws.
>
>
> You can sell it but if you are the builder of record you carry the same
> liability as Cessna, Piper, Grumman, etc.
I wonder how much that would cost?
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
>>
>> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> Won't work. It is not the buyer you need to worry about but the buyers
>>>> survivors. One can sign away their own rights but not the rights for
>>>> another and nothing you can do will protect you 100% from the buyers
>>>> survivors. What some home builders do if they are the builder of
>>>> record is part the plane and make sure the parts go to different buyers
>>>> and that none of them include the airworthyness certificate or
>>>> registration.
>>> So if you build a homebuilt you cant sell it. There should be some
>>> changes made in these laws.
>>
>>
>> You can sell it but if you are the builder of record you carry the same
>> liability as Cessna, Piper, Grumman, etc.
> I wonder how much that would cost?


How much would what cost?

[Steve Foley]

I've got another solution. An all-or-nothing rule.

If you sue for twenty-five million dollars and win, but the judge and/or
jury feels that the amount is excessive, you get nothing, or maybe $1.

It would eliminate those huge lawsuits.

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
> ...
> > It a no-win situation when there is an accident. Once lawyers and juries
> get
> > involved, common sense goes out the window. Just don't be the one with
the
> > deep pockets.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/grumman581/lawyer-problem-solution.htm
>
>
>

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 04:37:47 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>>> Won't work. It is not the buyer you need to worry about but the buyers
>>> survivors. One can sign away their own rights but not the rights for
>>> another and nothing you can do will protect you 100% from the buyers
>>> survivors. What some home builders do if they are the builder of record
>>> is part the plane and make sure the parts go to different buyers and that
>>> none of them include the airworthyness certificate or registration.
>> So if you build a homebuilt you cant sell it. There should be some changes
>> made in these laws.
>
>
>You can sell it but if you are the builder of record you carry the same
>liability as Cessna, Piper, Grumman, etc.

The General Aviation Revitalization Act limits liability to an
aircraft manufacturer to 18 years after production.

I wonder if this applies to homebuilts too.

[Michael Ware]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >>
> >> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>> Won't work. It is not the buyer you need to worry about but the
buyers
> >>>> survivors. One can sign away their own rights but not the rights for
> >>>> another and nothing you can do will protect you 100% from the buyers
> >>>> survivors. What some home builders do if they are the builder of
> >>>> record is part the plane and make sure the parts go to different
buyers
> >>>> and that none of them include the airworthyness certificate or
> >>>> registration.
> >>> So if you build a homebuilt you cant sell it. There should be some
> >>> changes made in these laws.
> >>
> >>
> >> You can sell it but if you are the builder of record you carry the same
> >> liability as Cessna, Piper, Grumman, etc.
> > I wonder how much that would cost?
>
>
> How much would what cost?


I think he is thinking insurance to cover that kind of liability, doesn't
apply here of course.

[Michael Ware]

General question here. I am not at all familiar with the regs regarding
homebuilts or experimental aircraft. Do they have to have an annual
inspection to remain airworthy?
If so, I am thinking let the thing go out of annual before you sell it. Make
the buyer responsible for arranging whatever is needed to get everything
current. Hopefully it would shift enough responsibilty to the new owner and
his A&P if some failure were to get someone hurt or killed to keep you out
of it.

[Dave Stadt]

"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
m...
> General question here. I am not at all familiar with the regs regarding
> homebuilts or experimental aircraft. Do they have to have an annual
> inspection to remain airworthy?
> If so, I am thinking let the thing go out of annual before you sell it.
> Make
> the buyer responsible for arranging whatever is needed to get everything
> current. Hopefully it would shift enough responsibilty to the new owner
> and
> his A&P if some failure were to get someone hurt or killed to keep you out
> of it.

Homebuilts require an annual inspection. If you built it you are still the
builder of record and if you have assets worth going after you will probably
join the list on the lawsuit. Quite often is is not who is at fault but who
has significant assets. Lawyers don't care who is at fault only who has
money.

[Steve Foley]

This is true. A company I know was sued after a claim was made that one of
their parts failed, causing the deaths of two small children. Tests showed
that the part had been improperly installed (which could have caused a
failure), but did not fail.

The insurance company settled for over $4 million.

The worst part is that now the product liability premiums for this product
line now cost more that the profit made on the line, however dropping the
line is impractical, as they will still need to maintain the liability
insurance for the products already sold.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:6mMMf.17004>
> Lawyers don't care who is at fault only who has money.
>
>