'You bend it, you mend it' - Piper sues Hales
Discussion
skeggysteve said:
You make a few very good points in your post but I think the above one is the best.
I know nothing about 917 engines but if what you are saying is correct (and I have no reason to think otherwise) why was this not raised in court?
..................
The following is complete speculation on my part.
The judgement says that DP is paying his mechanic £100 per day for work on the car.
That seems very little money to be paying to someone to look after a car as complex and valuable as a 917.
MH say:
" Hales came straight into the pits to report this to Piper's mechanic. Hales was told that this was a matter of adjustment"
I repeat this is speculation on my part.
So a cheap mechanic hadn't prepared the car properly (or hadn't been paid enough to do the required work?) and to save face tells MH to "be careful".
Earlier in the thread MH said that the in the conversation with the mechanic at the track, the mechanic said “I know, I know... David can’t reach third so we adjust it for second. Just be careful.”I know nothing about 917 engines but if what you are saying is correct (and I have no reason to think otherwise) why was this not raised in court?
..................
The following is complete speculation on my part.
The judgement says that DP is paying his mechanic £100 per day for work on the car.
That seems very little money to be paying to someone to look after a car as complex and valuable as a 917.
MH say:
" Hales came straight into the pits to report this to Piper's mechanic. Hales was told that this was a matter of adjustment"
I repeat this is speculation on my part.
So a cheap mechanic hadn't prepared the car properly (or hadn't been paid enough to do the required work?) and to save face tells MH to "be careful".
i.e the gear linkage was deliberately adjusted that way.
skeggysteve said:
Tankslider said:
I still don't understand how 8300 rpm blew a 917s engine. They don't make max power until 8400rpm. Max revs 8700-8800 (where the rev limiter, if it had one, would be set)
You make a few very good points in your post but I think the above one is the best.I know nothing about 917 engines but if what you are saying is correct (and I have no reason to think otherwise) why was this not raised in court?
..................
The following is complete speculation on my part.
The judgement says that DP is paying his mechanic £100 per day for work on the car.
That seems very little money to be paying to someone to look after a car as complex and valuable as a 917.
MH say:
" Hales came straight into the pits to report this to Piper's mechanic. Hales was told that this was a matter of adjustment"
I repeat this is speculation on my part.
So a cheap mechanic hadn't prepared the car properly (or hadn't been paid enough to do the required work?) and to save face tells MH to "be careful".
I base my speculation on my own experience - a couple of years ago I was paid a little less than a £100 a day (well a bit more if you count the food and beer!) to help look after a club race car that was no where near as complex as a 917 and worth a lot, lot less.
It doesn't matter what revs the engine went at, MH had been told to keep it below a set amount & agreed. He didn't & the engine let go.
To your second point,
What exactly are you speculating happened?
As I said last night when we'd only heard MH's side of events, it's an extremely s
tty state of affairs & not one I would wish on anyone let alone someone who I have a large amount of respect for.But as I said last night, MH is certainly guilty (by his own admission) of some extremely silly decisions. Having read the evidence I simply cannot fathom how anyone could think they would win in court.
However, silly decisions should never result in someone losing their home over, but as stated, even if Piper doesn't enforce the ruling the lawyers certainly will.
A sad, sad take altogether. Hopefully others will learn form this in the future.
It seems to have been established that the gear change was discussed with the mechanic and the test continued - so that was obviously with the blessing of the mechanic. It's not surprising MH continued to try to complete a big and expensive job (ie the feature). it's easy to be wise after the event. If testers of historic cars gave up at every problem, nothing would get done.
Stuart said:
Graham said:
It would be great if HM/Pistonheads do something we can all get behind to help out Mark.
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the court case, Mark is one of the nicest guys in motorsport and a great journalist and shouldnt be facing loosing everything over this, if we all so a little we can help him out.
Yep, hoping that we can help at least provide a focus for the many people who've expressed support to help in practical ways. A couple of ideas, ranging from simply publishing an email address for Mark to which donations can be made via paypal, to organising some sort of fundraising event. I fear that neither will get us all the way there, as the judgement and costs for both sides will be an enormous sum, but we can but do our best.Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the court case, Mark is one of the nicest guys in motorsport and a great journalist and shouldnt be facing loosing everything over this, if we all so a little we can help him out.
One Shot said:
MH missed a gear - sure (so I don't think the insurance statement was misleading) - but was it a negligent act? - I don't think so because of the gear change difficulties.
The issue is the contradictionIn writing to the insurers he admits there was no problem with the car prior to the engine blowing and that it was as a result of a missed shift by himself
In court he said the complete opposite
So one of these statements is not truthful, because they cannot both be so
coyft said:
You could argue that having identified a problem with the gears he shouldn't have continued driving it.
Pure speculation (or maybe I overheard it atAutosport) imagine the situation...circuit hire, indemnity, hire charge on 917, potentially 2 UK articles and one or two overseas with buyers on them all....an editor at the end of the phone...the feature isn't in the bag yet...you're a good driver, no way are you going to stuff the car or buzz the engine..and you need to recoup the investment...do you feel lucky punk?...as I say, pure speculation....but faced with the same situation, would I take the risk?...An awful and unfortunate situation for all involved and sadly, probaly the result of all parties labouring under the hope that "the worst that can happen won't happen" on the day and pressing on with the drive nonetheless.
Given the judgement, It's a sad situation for motoring journalism as well. If i was a writer, I wouldn't want to be driving expensive classics in the future without watertight insurance protection. Which I am sure is nigh on impossible to actually take out (at least for a reasonable price).
I hope that somehow great writers are still allowed access to great cars by understanding and generous owners, so that people like me can read about it.
The only silver lining I can see is that I cannot remember that last time I read a thread on PH, particularly on such an emotive subject as this , that went on for 30+ pages that didn't disintegrate into bickering and name calling! It's been enlightening and in the space of 48 hours I've gone from wanting to donate to help MH to realising the importance of listening to the wiser posters here and waiting to see the facts before jumping to conclusions!
Given the judgement, It's a sad situation for motoring journalism as well. If i was a writer, I wouldn't want to be driving expensive classics in the future without watertight insurance protection. Which I am sure is nigh on impossible to actually take out (at least for a reasonable price).
I hope that somehow great writers are still allowed access to great cars by understanding and generous owners, so that people like me can read about it.
The only silver lining I can see is that I cannot remember that last time I read a thread on PH, particularly on such an emotive subject as this , that went on for 30+ pages that didn't disintegrate into bickering and name calling! It's been enlightening and in the space of 48 hours I've gone from wanting to donate to help MH to realising the importance of listening to the wiser posters here and waiting to see the facts before jumping to conclusions!
Those whose opinions have turned against MH - where's the proportionality?
At the very worst the guy was guilty of missing a gear change (and even that's debatable, given the extensive evidence that exists around the fragility of the 917 gearbox as documented on this thread).
Numerous people have stepped forward to vouch for his honesty and good character. MH has already admitted he was naive - perhaps he believed, as some naively do, that courts would take into consideration what to him was self-evident (i.e fairness and proportional outcomes) rather than basing decisions on how someone carries himself in the courtroom.
I find very easy to believe that a desperate man, left high and dry by the insurers, already facing financial ruin under pressure from DP, and inexperienced in the ways of jurisprudence, would make an ill-advised decision to go to court - and furthermore that when the full realisation dawned of what a bad decision this was, that he feel utterly cornered and hence come across as "creative, inconsistent, self-motivated".
Contrast this with DP who by comparison had little to lose and little pressure bearing down on him.
As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
I try to avoid the knee-jerk negativism that tends to characterise popular opinion of the legal system and legal profession, but given that many of the people on this thread who are saying that MH deserves this outcome appear to be lawyers or with some experience to the legal system, I can't help but conclude that achieving fairness and justice is less important than playing the game in a "savvy" way. Or, to quote "Lurking Lawyer": Lawyers are often told that we're too interested in academic intepretations and issues, and that we should offer more practical advice geared towards real world solutions.
At the very worst the guy was guilty of missing a gear change (and even that's debatable, given the extensive evidence that exists around the fragility of the 917 gearbox as documented on this thread).
Numerous people have stepped forward to vouch for his honesty and good character. MH has already admitted he was naive - perhaps he believed, as some naively do, that courts would take into consideration what to him was self-evident (i.e fairness and proportional outcomes) rather than basing decisions on how someone carries himself in the courtroom.
I find very easy to believe that a desperate man, left high and dry by the insurers, already facing financial ruin under pressure from DP, and inexperienced in the ways of jurisprudence, would make an ill-advised decision to go to court - and furthermore that when the full realisation dawned of what a bad decision this was, that he feel utterly cornered and hence come across as "creative, inconsistent, self-motivated".
Contrast this with DP who by comparison had little to lose and little pressure bearing down on him.
As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
I try to avoid the knee-jerk negativism that tends to characterise popular opinion of the legal system and legal profession, but given that many of the people on this thread who are saying that MH deserves this outcome appear to be lawyers or with some experience to the legal system, I can't help but conclude that achieving fairness and justice is less important than playing the game in a "savvy" way. Or, to quote "Lurking Lawyer": Lawyers are often told that we're too interested in academic intepretations and issues, and that we should offer more practical advice geared towards real world solutions.
I'm sure I am just naturally cautious but MH has been doing this for a while.
He is playing with big boys toys without deep pockets. He must have known that the insurance would almost certainly not cover any mechanical problem.
He had also been warned about the gear change and he must have known that if something serious went wrong mechanically he would not have the means to pay for it. Surely in those circumstances before the car has turned a wheel you would want to be absolutely clear exactly who would be responsible for what? This is a £1.3M car not a shed of the week.
I can't see it matters who may have said what to whom or what "gentleman's agreement" he thought was there or that some see Piper as a mean money-grabbing old man.
Ultimately MH was prepared to drive the car on some flimsy "agreement" and that has cost him. A gamble that back-fired. Maybe he assumed that Piper would just put his hand in his pocket but assuming and knowing are two separate things.
MH if you are still reading this thread I really sympathise with the plight you now find yourself in but frankly it was madness
He is playing with big boys toys without deep pockets. He must have known that the insurance would almost certainly not cover any mechanical problem.
He had also been warned about the gear change and he must have known that if something serious went wrong mechanically he would not have the means to pay for it. Surely in those circumstances before the car has turned a wheel you would want to be absolutely clear exactly who would be responsible for what? This is a £1.3M car not a shed of the week.
I can't see it matters who may have said what to whom or what "gentleman's agreement" he thought was there or that some see Piper as a mean money-grabbing old man.
Ultimately MH was prepared to drive the car on some flimsy "agreement" and that has cost him. A gamble that back-fired. Maybe he assumed that Piper would just put his hand in his pocket but assuming and knowing are two separate things.
MH if you are still reading this thread I really sympathise with the plight you now find yourself in but frankly it was madness
Hear Hear!
plenty said:
Those whose opinions have turned against MH - where's the proportionality?
At the very worst the guy was guilty of missing a gear change (and even that's debatable, given the extensive evidence that exists around the fragility of the 917 gearbox as documented on this thread).
Numerous people have stepped forward to vouch for his honesty and good character. MH has already admitted he was naive - perhaps he believed, as some naively do, that courts would take into consideration what to him was self-evident (i.e fairness and proportional outcomes) rather than basing decisions on how someone carries himself in the courtroom.
I find very easy to believe that a desperate man, left high and dry by the insurers, already facing financial ruin under pressure from DP, and inexperienced in the ways of jurisprudence, would make an ill-advised decision to go to court - and furthermore that when the full realisation dawned of what a bad decision this was, that he feel utterly cornered and hence come across as "creative, inconsistent, self-motivated".
Contrast this with DP who by comparison had little to lose and little pressure bearing down on him.
As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
I try to avoid the knee-jerk negativism that tends to characterise popular opinion of the legal system and legal profession, but given that many of the people on this thread who are saying that MH deserves this outcome appear to be lawyers or with some experience to the legal system, I can't help but conclude that achieving fairness and justice is less important than playing the game in a "savvy" way. Or, to quote "Lurking Lawyer": Lawyers are often told that we're too interested in academic intepretations and issues, and that we should offer more practical advice geared towards real world solutions.
At the very worst the guy was guilty of missing a gear change (and even that's debatable, given the extensive evidence that exists around the fragility of the 917 gearbox as documented on this thread).
Numerous people have stepped forward to vouch for his honesty and good character. MH has already admitted he was naive - perhaps he believed, as some naively do, that courts would take into consideration what to him was self-evident (i.e fairness and proportional outcomes) rather than basing decisions on how someone carries himself in the courtroom.
I find very easy to believe that a desperate man, left high and dry by the insurers, already facing financial ruin under pressure from DP, and inexperienced in the ways of jurisprudence, would make an ill-advised decision to go to court - and furthermore that when the full realisation dawned of what a bad decision this was, that he feel utterly cornered and hence come across as "creative, inconsistent, self-motivated".
Contrast this with DP who by comparison had little to lose and little pressure bearing down on him.
As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
I try to avoid the knee-jerk negativism that tends to characterise popular opinion of the legal system and legal profession, but given that many of the people on this thread who are saying that MH deserves this outcome appear to be lawyers or with some experience to the legal system, I can't help but conclude that achieving fairness and justice is less important than playing the game in a "savvy" way. Or, to quote "Lurking Lawyer": Lawyers are often told that we're too interested in academic intepretations and issues, and that we should offer more practical advice geared towards real world solutions.
plenty said:
Those whose opinions have turned against MH - where's the proportionality?
At the very worst the guy was guilty of missing a gear change (and even that's debatable, given the extensive evidence that exists around the fragility of the 917 gearbox as documented on this thread).
Numerous people have stepped forward to vouch for his honesty and good character. MH has already admitted he was naive - perhaps he believed, as some naively do, that courts would take into consideration what to him was self-evident (i.e fairness and proportional outcomes) rather than basing decisions on how someone carries himself in the courtroom.
I find very easy to believe that a desperate man, left high and dry by the insurers, already facing financial ruin under pressure from DP, and inexperienced in the ways of jurisprudence, would make an ill-advised decision to go to court - and furthermore that when the full realisation dawned of what a bad decision this was, that he feel utterly cornered and hence come across as "creative, inconsistent, self-motivated".
Contrast this with DP who by comparison had little to lose and little pressure bearing down on him.
As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
.[/i]
MH lost in court because the evidence overwhelmingly supported Pipers claim. I fail to see how anyone who has read thE judgement could argue it was wrongAt the very worst the guy was guilty of missing a gear change (and even that's debatable, given the extensive evidence that exists around the fragility of the 917 gearbox as documented on this thread).
Numerous people have stepped forward to vouch for his honesty and good character. MH has already admitted he was naive - perhaps he believed, as some naively do, that courts would take into consideration what to him was self-evident (i.e fairness and proportional outcomes) rather than basing decisions on how someone carries himself in the courtroom.
I find very easy to believe that a desperate man, left high and dry by the insurers, already facing financial ruin under pressure from DP, and inexperienced in the ways of jurisprudence, would make an ill-advised decision to go to court - and furthermore that when the full realisation dawned of what a bad decision this was, that he feel utterly cornered and hence come across as "creative, inconsistent, self-motivated".
Contrast this with DP who by comparison had little to lose and little pressure bearing down on him.
As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
.[/i]
Breadvan72 said:
agtlaw said:
Finlandese said:
I'm not a lawyer, but I find it very surprising that somebody gave advice to go to court with that insurance claim statement on record..
Well, I am a lawyer and I totally agree. Hales had a mountain to climb. This also: "Even on his own factual case, I would have found the Defendant liable in that (1) he identified a problem with the gearbox in changing gears, and (2) he had been specifically warned that a failure to engage gear might cause engine damage, it was therefore reckless of him to continue driving the car."
This case should have settled. It's obvious from the judgment that there is no merit in appealing the outcome.
You are correct. To change the subject completely, I just remebered a story of an acquaintance of a friend, who told me about a case where this acquaintance had his friends rocking horse break up when he was... well, rocking on it. It was a very valuable rocking horse, and the rocking horses owner really wished to get new one of the same kind. Their home insurance policy did not cover damage for the rocking horse due old age, but it did cover the damage for "horsing around". Well the rocker felt bad that the horse broke while he was riding on it, so when the owners of the rocking horse suggested that he would state in their insurance claim that he had indeed "horsed around", he felt that it would be a nice thing to do for those nice folks with a nice (well, it used to be nice) rocking horse. After all, it could´ve happend that way, and the insurance company can afford it. A victimless crime, some might think. For some reason the claim was not a succesful one. I don´t recall how the story went on from there. Anyways, memory is a tricky thing, you know..
Back to the subject of litigation. I´d guess that sometimes people go to court on principle, against the odds, when they feel that the truth is on their side. As the laywers on this thread have said, this tends to be risky/expensive. Especially, if you haven´t been very careful to be truthful and careful throughout the process.
Regarding this particular case, I still feel very sorry for any person who is facing finacial ruin, especially at stage of their lives, when the possibilties of climb back are less than when younger.
Edited by Finlandese on Monday 21st January 21:14
I've commented above on the profiles of the barristers who argued the case at trial. Mr Piper's solicitors were Wilmots, a firm with specialist experience in relation to classic cars (they acted in the Brewer v Mann case about an old Bentley that was much discussed on PH last year). Mr Hales used a small firm that advertises insolvency law as its main strength. That doesn't seem an obvious choice of horse for this course.
While arguing the rights and wrongs of this we should look to how it affects us as readers of PH/Octane or whatever.
There isn't the money in publishing - particularly not paper publishing - to pay the real costs of running the kinds of cars we want to read about. Two magazines clubbed together to pay the expenses for running this article.
For new cars and the occasional heritage car there are manufacturers fleets, but if a manufacturer doesn't have a demonstrator we'll not get to read about it save for an owners generosity.
I note that in this month's EVO they say that a previous attempt to review the One-77 was scuppered because they couldn't afford the insurance. I assume that for the review they did the owner paid the premium.
Of course in hindsight you think "there should have been a proper contract", but when you've sixty or eighty editorial pages to produce in a month, it's hard enough to get two cars in the same place on the same day, when the track is available with all the right people, and hope the weather is good, to fit in with a deadline without arseing about with contracts. And that only fills four or six pages.
The UK press is very special in that it is properly critical, if it becomes entirely reliant on the goodwill of those with vested interests, rather than having that balanced by petrolhead owners we'll suffer as readers.
There isn't the money in publishing - particularly not paper publishing - to pay the real costs of running the kinds of cars we want to read about. Two magazines clubbed together to pay the expenses for running this article.
For new cars and the occasional heritage car there are manufacturers fleets, but if a manufacturer doesn't have a demonstrator we'll not get to read about it save for an owners generosity.
I note that in this month's EVO they say that a previous attempt to review the One-77 was scuppered because they couldn't afford the insurance. I assume that for the review they did the owner paid the premium.
Of course in hindsight you think "there should have been a proper contract", but when you've sixty or eighty editorial pages to produce in a month, it's hard enough to get two cars in the same place on the same day, when the track is available with all the right people, and hope the weather is good, to fit in with a deadline without arseing about with contracts. And that only fills four or six pages.
The UK press is very special in that it is properly critical, if it becomes entirely reliant on the goodwill of those with vested interests, rather than having that balanced by petrolhead owners we'll suffer as readers.
Breadvan72 said:
I've commented above on the profiles of the barristers who argued the case at trial. Mr Piper's solicitors were Wilmots, a firm with specialist experience in relation to classic cars (they acted in the Brewer v Mann case about an old Bentley that was much discussed on PH last year). Mr Hales used a small firm that advertises insolvency law as its main strength. That doesn't seem an obvious choice of horse for this course.
So justice, you suggest, is proportional to the brief you hire??simonrockman said:
While arguing the rights and wrongs of this we should look to how it affects us as readers of PH/Octane or whatever.
There isn't the money in publishing - particularly not paper publishing - to pay the real costs of running the kinds of cars we want to read about. Two magazines clubbed together to pay the expenses for running this article.
For new cars and the occasional heritage car there are manufacturers fleets, but if a manufacturer doesn't have a demonstrator we'll not get to read about it save for an owners generosity.
I note that in this month's EVO they say that a previous attempt to review the One-77 was scuppered because they couldn't afford the insurance. I assume that for the review they did the owner paid the premium.
Of course in hindsight you think "there should have been a proper contract", but when you've sixty or eighty editorial pages to produce in a month, it's hard enough to get two cars in the same place on the same day, when the track is available with all the right people, and hope the weather is good, to fit in with a deadline without arseing about with contracts. And that only fills four or six pages.
The UK press is very special in that it is properly critical, if it becomes entirely reliant on the goodwill of those with vested interests, rather than having that balanced by petrolhead owners we'll suffer as readers.
The alternative being acting in an amateur and shambolic manner, leaving the journalist to pick up the tab when it all goes wrong?There isn't the money in publishing - particularly not paper publishing - to pay the real costs of running the kinds of cars we want to read about. Two magazines clubbed together to pay the expenses for running this article.
For new cars and the occasional heritage car there are manufacturers fleets, but if a manufacturer doesn't have a demonstrator we'll not get to read about it save for an owners generosity.
I note that in this month's EVO they say that a previous attempt to review the One-77 was scuppered because they couldn't afford the insurance. I assume that for the review they did the owner paid the premium.
Of course in hindsight you think "there should have been a proper contract", but when you've sixty or eighty editorial pages to produce in a month, it's hard enough to get two cars in the same place on the same day, when the track is available with all the right people, and hope the weather is good, to fit in with a deadline without arseing about with contracts. And that only fills four or six pages.
The UK press is very special in that it is properly critical, if it becomes entirely reliant on the goodwill of those with vested interests, rather than having that balanced by petrolhead owners we'll suffer as readers.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff