![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(NB- John is a bit of a curmudgeon, but I both like him and respect
him a lot.) Richard, that is indeed the best word to describe John. It fits him perfectly. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Smitty Two wrote: In article , john smith wrote: From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings. Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this notion applied as a legal precedent in the past? Who is being greedy here? What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale? Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from Mr Dyke. What is it, in your mind, that differentiates a set of airplane plans from anything else in the world that might be sold second-hand? What should the inheritor of a set of plans he has no intention of using do with them? Throw them away? Return them to Mr. Dyke so that he can sell them twice? Warranties on new merchandise often come with the "original purchaser" limitation. If Mr. Dyke wants to offer technical support only to the original purchaser, he is within his legal rights to do so. I still maintain that he is being small by doing so. Who cares whether the plans change hands 100 times? He sells one set of plans, he eventually offers one real builder technical support. Sorry, but I would have to disagree with you on this. If, as the purchaser of the plans you want the technical support of the designer, you should purchase those plans from the designer and pay the price for that support. The only reason for purchasing them otherwise is to try and essentially get something for nothing. Mr. Dyke doesn't owe you, the second, third, or whatever down the line anything and potientially would have to answer the same questions over and over again not to mention having to try and keep up with who now rightfully owns the plans. As the inheritor of a set of plans, you can keep them, throw them away or sell them but you have not right to expect that whatever action you take should imply any liability on a third party, in this case Mr. Dyke. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "BobR" wrote in message oups.com... As the inheritor of a set of plans, you can keep them, throw them away or sell them but you have not right to expect that whatever action you take should imply any liability on a third party, in this case Mr. Dyke. I'm not saying anybody involved is right or wrong and I've never seen Mr. Dyke's purchase agreement BUT... The original purchaser bought the plans and the right to build one aircraft. Without the transfer of that right the plans are just artwork and would require no technical support. It is the right to build the aircraft that requires the support. Since the aircraft was never built that right hasn't been used and has been inherited by the OP. So if part of what was paid for when the license was granted was tech support that tech support really should transfer to the new owner. (A fair transfer fee could be charged.) Of course, none of this matters if the sales agreement says different. And since any cost of litigating the matter would cost more than a fresh set of plans it is all just a matter of us babbling on. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .com,
"BobR" wrote: Mr. Dyke ... potentially would have to answer the same questions over and over again not to mention having to try and keep up with who now rightfully owns the plans. Actually, the OP specifically stated that Mr. Dyke specifically stated that *had the airplane construction been started,* he would offer tech support to the new owner, but since construction had *not* been started, he wouldn't. This policy seems exactly contrary to your logic here, FMPOV. The plans and the technical support that ostensibly accompanies them have both been paid for, and neither have been used. Ann Landers might have a different view, as you obviously do too, but my morality still says they ought to be transferable to another party. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |