'You bend it, you mend it' - Piper sues Hales
Discussion
Tankslider said:
It is my understanding that Nick Mason's mechanic testified in court that Hales came back in to the pits and the conversation happened. Neither Piper, nor Piper's mechanic could recall such a conversation.
Hales's lawyer didn't know a synchromesh cone from a Cornetto, sadly.
Who made the decision to go back out? Hales or someone else on his team, or the owner or someone on his team? That's probably the key question in this case. Was any of that clear in the transcript?Hales's lawyer didn't know a synchromesh cone from a Cornetto, sadly.
GC8 said:
I wouldnt describe Mark Hales as a 'journalist'. He is an extremely experienced racer who now writes too.
Skipped around nine pages because this comment was left.Mark rag's Nick Mason's beloved machinery aswell , i see calling him a mere journalist more than a mere travesty.
heebeegeetee said:
Us enthusiasts out here are lucky that we have such individuals around to keep the world's greatest cars operating in the way they should and not kept hidden out of sight. Why anyone would want to delve into and comment on their private lives is beyond me though, other than to give us all a good gossip we're we're out and about on events.
I would suggest that the people disparaging David Piper rally don't know anything at all about him beyond a few lines written on the internet, but in today's unpleasant society that's not going to stop some people holding back.
As enthusiasts lets be grateful for what we have and let's not denigrate people the moment we discover that they may not be a perfect specimen of human being, particularly when we're judging by own own standards based on living an entirely different way of life.
As one of the people that have questioned whether Piper should have brought this action I agree that it's great that these cars are used and seen but if this kind of action becomes the norm there will be nobody with adequate talent willing to drive them for fear of losing their shirt over a non-fault failure, mistake or racing incident that they then is compelled to pay for.I would suggest that the people disparaging David Piper rally don't know anything at all about him beyond a few lines written on the internet, but in today's unpleasant society that's not going to stop some people holding back.
As enthusiasts lets be grateful for what we have and let's not denigrate people the moment we discover that they may not be a perfect specimen of human being, particularly when we're judging by own own standards based on living an entirely different way of life.
The owners that we should be grateful for are the ones that, when put in this situation, recognise that even if they have a case in law they should not pursue it.
From a Telegraph interview with David Piper:
"Leasing out his cars for others to race "keeps the wheels turning" but is fraught, as almost anything that fails on the Ferraris costs a lot of money. "So I prefer drivers who are mechanically sympathetic, and there are a lot of capable guys who would love to race a prototype Ferrari without the cost of buying one. Fortunately, the Ferraris are inherently robust. The basic understanding is `you bend it, you mend it', although I take care of mechanical failures - unless the engine has been seriously over-revved - and of course I seek to provide a car that is absolutely safe"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/goodwood-reviv...
"Leasing out his cars for others to race "keeps the wheels turning" but is fraught, as almost anything that fails on the Ferraris costs a lot of money. "So I prefer drivers who are mechanically sympathetic, and there are a lot of capable guys who would love to race a prototype Ferrari without the cost of buying one. Fortunately, the Ferraris are inherently robust. The basic understanding is `you bend it, you mend it', although I take care of mechanical failures - unless the engine has been seriously over-revved - and of course I seek to provide a car that is absolutely safe"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/goodwood-reviv...
Tankslider said:
From a Telegraph interview with David Piper:
"Leasing out his cars for others to race "keeps the wheels turning" but is fraught, as almost anything that fails on the Ferraris costs a lot of money. "So I prefer drivers who are mechanically sympathetic, and there are a lot of capable guys who would love to race a prototype Ferrari without the cost of buying one. Fortunately, the Ferraris are inherently robust. The basic understanding is `you bend it, you mend it', although I take care of mechanical failures - unless the engine has been seriously over-revved - and of course I seek to provide a car that is absolutely safe"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/goodwood-reviv...
I was just in the process of quoting exactly the same paragraph but was beaten to it. "Leasing out his cars for others to race "keeps the wheels turning" but is fraught, as almost anything that fails on the Ferraris costs a lot of money. "So I prefer drivers who are mechanically sympathetic, and there are a lot of capable guys who would love to race a prototype Ferrari without the cost of buying one. Fortunately, the Ferraris are inherently robust. The basic understanding is `you bend it, you mend it', although I take care of mechanical failures - unless the engine has been seriously over-revved - and of course I seek to provide a car that is absolutely safe"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/goodwood-reviv...
This was an interview given 12 years ago. The pertinent sentence is the one in bold (my bold). It's too open and wide a statement and if (when!) occurs will always sadly be hard to prove and that's why, I guess, we are where we are.
I still think, Mr Piper should have been 'the bigger man' and stopped proceedings very early on (or indeed never have started them). A precedent will have been formed by now and whilst some clarity may prevail in some agreements ( that may not have done previously) I'm sure a lot of 'drives' have been lost
Boshly said:
a lot of 'drives' have been lost
That's going to be the problem from now on. Great cars will be mothballed and the enthusiast media-reading public will be the losers. The precedent set by this case could even encourage unscrupulous car owners to 'get out of' a car profitably by deliberately engineering a weakness into it and then loaning it out. Blackpuddin said:
That's going to be the problem from now on. Great cars will be mothballed and the enthusiast media-reading public will be the losers. The precedent set by this case could even encourage unscrupulous car owners to 'get out of' a car profitably by deliberately engineering a weakness into a car and then loaning it out.
I bet this doesn't happen. Let's see if we see any reduction in quality cars at the big events.I would imagine there would be an awful lot more classics raced out there if it wasn't an issue.
If drivers (who may or may not be able to afford the repair costs or insurance for the same) feel they are at risk from severe financial consequence, they are less likely to take the chance.
If drivers (who may or may not be able to afford the repair costs or insurance for the same) feel they are at risk from severe financial consequence, they are less likely to take the chance.
johnfm said:
I don't see why this case will suddenly stop owners letting their cars see the light of day. It may just involve better contracts and insurance - as happens in many escapades that are generally safe but can go wrong.
Thing is though that real contracts in this case would always have to be backed by some kind of insurance - and I just can't see publishing companies footing the bills for the premiums, let alone the scribblers. I believe many automotive publishers run on a nil-insurance arrangement where they simply pay for any damage themselves, as company-wide insurance policies are not cost-effective. Publishing company accountants would never expose their firms to this sort of financial risk. Edited by Blackpuddin on Sunday 20th January 13:31
10 Pence Short said:
I would imagine there would be an awful lot more classics raced out there if it wasn't an issue.
If drivers (who may or may not be able to afford the repair costs or insurance for the same) feel they are at risk from severe financial consequence, they are less likely to take the chance.
Maybe, but we can hardly complain of thin grids. The best events still fill themselves up with the best cars and I think that will continue. It will also remain a very expensive game or business, but maybe those with shallower pockets will have to be more careful as a result of this sad case.If drivers (who may or may not be able to afford the repair costs or insurance for the same) feel they are at risk from severe financial consequence, they are less likely to take the chance.
It's always difficult to know whether to chime in or stay silent on these threads, but having been there at the court watching proceedings, and then being unable to align that experience with some of the (no doubt well intentioned) comments in here, on balance I feel I should. I think I’ve answered the worst misconceptions.
My personal opinion remains that Piper suffered a loss, through whatever reason, and should be recompensed for that. However this is in contrast to evidence from the manager of Nick Mason's stable, and the view of several journalists including Toby Moody (Moto GP/BTCC) who Tweeted recently "One of the unspoken givens; you crash you pay, mechanical; owner pays."
The real issue of course is the level of that compensation. Should that have been the amount that Hales & Octane did offer in an attempt to settle, or the amount written on the disputed foreign invoice (the one dated 30th Feb where the raiser spelt their own name incorrectly). Further, if the amount offered is absolutely the limit of what the individual can afford and that is rejected, then it is not stupidity that will end in it going to court, it is inevitability.
Thereafter is the question of who to sue. While Piper issued an invoice from his limited company to Hales' limited company for the test, and Octane were involved too, Piper as an individual chose to sue Hales personally. Well, if you could, you would, wouldn't you. Although we have heard from our online lawyer here that this wasn't significant, the amount of time spent on it by Piper's team suggested otherwise. In the end the use of Hales using his own personal web domain for emails setting up the test seemed to swing the argument. I'm sure more than a few will make a mental note.
This was especially significant because had Piper sued Hales’ limited company, as most of us might have expected, he had PLI insurance in place which could have settled. That’s why he has it and operates via the company. He was denied this by Piper’s action.
Which brings us to the court steps, and yes, they (actually one man) did hear both sides of the argument. However when one side spends double the other in any competitive arena, be it football, motorsport or court, the result is a pretty one sided affair and this was no exception. The defence did not bring forth technical expert witnesses who were sufficiently knowledgeable about the 917, although due to operating in the rarified world they do I understand those approached were reluctant to take the stand. Whatever, it was clear they should have been there.
They should also have got hold of the gearbox but were unable to.
There were also surprising failures to clarify matters during periods of confusion - the condition of the gearbox on the test being a central plank. For example firstly we heard that the car had raced subsequently without fault, but then we heard that yes, it had, but that the gearbox had been changed. The judge later said "..but the car has been raced without fault afterwards" which one would have expected to trigger a "b, b, but My Lord you are mistaken.." from the defense team, but that didn't come and the misconception laboured on.
There is a good deal of talk here about insurance, but that is a much broader subject that I will not comment on beyond what I already have because there may well be further legal action. Publishers have responsibilities too. In this specific case it's something of a red herring though, the case actually centred on two points;
1. Was there an agreement about what would happen in the event of any uninsured mechanical failure. Hales says yes there was and articulated a conversation where "we would need to have a grown up conversation" and Piper saying "Alright", which eventually resulted in the Octane offer to Piper at the time. Piper denied having this conversation and it was not written down.
2. Did Hales report on the day that the gearbox was faulty and he was driving around the problem. Again, Piper and his mechanic denied this conversation took place (although the mechanic did change his evidence on the stand to admit the brakes were juddering too). Nick Mason's man who was also there did repeatedly testify in Hales' favour that he had heard this, but the judge felt he "could have been mistaken". He (Nick Mason’s man not the judge) also testified that the car didn't look as generally well prepared as he would have expected.
In the end the judge lent towards Piper's version rather than Hales' who he said was "combative in the witness box", which he was, visibly stressed too, but then I probably would be if my livelihood and well-being was in as much jeopardy.
It was an educating but deflating experience on many levels, and yes Piper has said before now that this was "principle". He was also in a financial position to prosecute it forcefully. The glimmer of hope is how he chooses to enforce the order now he has secured it and on that we will have to wait and see.
It was noteworthy that close personal friends of Piper approached Hales at Autosport telling him where the car was now (Hales’ team did not know the car was sold at that time) and that the gearbox had indeed been changed, one later saying to me "He's a friend but I'd tell him now he shouldn't have let it go this far and he should stop it now".
Being even handed I say again, I really do think Piper should receive something. The trouble is that the original offer has now melted away as Hales has been left to fight this alone, and with the move to sue him personally rather than via his insured company the likelihood of Piper actually receiving anything is diminished.
There are connotations for the industry at large, and the views of many of them (names you will recognise) are corralled at @trackdrivermag on Twitter. You can click through to conversations to ensure it is reflective of the whole.
Stacy
My personal opinion remains that Piper suffered a loss, through whatever reason, and should be recompensed for that. However this is in contrast to evidence from the manager of Nick Mason's stable, and the view of several journalists including Toby Moody (Moto GP/BTCC) who Tweeted recently "One of the unspoken givens; you crash you pay, mechanical; owner pays."
The real issue of course is the level of that compensation. Should that have been the amount that Hales & Octane did offer in an attempt to settle, or the amount written on the disputed foreign invoice (the one dated 30th Feb where the raiser spelt their own name incorrectly). Further, if the amount offered is absolutely the limit of what the individual can afford and that is rejected, then it is not stupidity that will end in it going to court, it is inevitability.
Thereafter is the question of who to sue. While Piper issued an invoice from his limited company to Hales' limited company for the test, and Octane were involved too, Piper as an individual chose to sue Hales personally. Well, if you could, you would, wouldn't you. Although we have heard from our online lawyer here that this wasn't significant, the amount of time spent on it by Piper's team suggested otherwise. In the end the use of Hales using his own personal web domain for emails setting up the test seemed to swing the argument. I'm sure more than a few will make a mental note.
This was especially significant because had Piper sued Hales’ limited company, as most of us might have expected, he had PLI insurance in place which could have settled. That’s why he has it and operates via the company. He was denied this by Piper’s action.
Which brings us to the court steps, and yes, they (actually one man) did hear both sides of the argument. However when one side spends double the other in any competitive arena, be it football, motorsport or court, the result is a pretty one sided affair and this was no exception. The defence did not bring forth technical expert witnesses who were sufficiently knowledgeable about the 917, although due to operating in the rarified world they do I understand those approached were reluctant to take the stand. Whatever, it was clear they should have been there.
They should also have got hold of the gearbox but were unable to.
There were also surprising failures to clarify matters during periods of confusion - the condition of the gearbox on the test being a central plank. For example firstly we heard that the car had raced subsequently without fault, but then we heard that yes, it had, but that the gearbox had been changed. The judge later said "..but the car has been raced without fault afterwards" which one would have expected to trigger a "b, b, but My Lord you are mistaken.." from the defense team, but that didn't come and the misconception laboured on.
There is a good deal of talk here about insurance, but that is a much broader subject that I will not comment on beyond what I already have because there may well be further legal action. Publishers have responsibilities too. In this specific case it's something of a red herring though, the case actually centred on two points;
1. Was there an agreement about what would happen in the event of any uninsured mechanical failure. Hales says yes there was and articulated a conversation where "we would need to have a grown up conversation" and Piper saying "Alright", which eventually resulted in the Octane offer to Piper at the time. Piper denied having this conversation and it was not written down.
2. Did Hales report on the day that the gearbox was faulty and he was driving around the problem. Again, Piper and his mechanic denied this conversation took place (although the mechanic did change his evidence on the stand to admit the brakes were juddering too). Nick Mason's man who was also there did repeatedly testify in Hales' favour that he had heard this, but the judge felt he "could have been mistaken". He (Nick Mason’s man not the judge) also testified that the car didn't look as generally well prepared as he would have expected.
In the end the judge lent towards Piper's version rather than Hales' who he said was "combative in the witness box", which he was, visibly stressed too, but then I probably would be if my livelihood and well-being was in as much jeopardy.
It was an educating but deflating experience on many levels, and yes Piper has said before now that this was "principle". He was also in a financial position to prosecute it forcefully. The glimmer of hope is how he chooses to enforce the order now he has secured it and on that we will have to wait and see.
It was noteworthy that close personal friends of Piper approached Hales at Autosport telling him where the car was now (Hales’ team did not know the car was sold at that time) and that the gearbox had indeed been changed, one later saying to me "He's a friend but I'd tell him now he shouldn't have let it go this far and he should stop it now".
Being even handed I say again, I really do think Piper should receive something. The trouble is that the original offer has now melted away as Hales has been left to fight this alone, and with the move to sue him personally rather than via his insured company the likelihood of Piper actually receiving anything is diminished.
There are connotations for the industry at large, and the views of many of them (names you will recognise) are corralled at @trackdrivermag on Twitter. You can click through to conversations to ensure it is reflective of the whole.
Stacy
johnfm said:
heebeegeetee said:
AlexKing said:
The deal is between the two individuals, and the risk is accepted by the owner when he hands over the keys, unless a contract is signed or a deposit is taken.
Says who?If contract is silent on risk, and parties won't settle it goes to court.
When is decision due?
One of very few knowledgeable posts on this thread from Stacy Vickers. The more you find out the poorer the light in which David Piper is shown.
When PLI was in place to settle though MHs limited company, I cant see how Pipers determination to sue MH personally, bancrupting him and leaving him homeless, can be regarded as anything other than malicious and spiteful.
What a
.
When PLI was in place to settle though MHs limited company, I cant see how Pipers determination to sue MH personally, bancrupting him and leaving him homeless, can be regarded as anything other than malicious and spiteful.
What a
.I'm lucky enough to race several cars belonging to a friend - a Crossle 9S and a Lola S2. I've also tested his TVR and TR4. We've never discussed it, but we both know that if I crash it, I'm paying for the repairs. I have a bit of money tucked away, enough to cover repairs up to a crash followed by a fire. If that money wasn't there, I wouldn't be driving.
If I buzzed the engine, I'd expect to be paying for that too.
If I buzzed the engine, I'd expect to be paying for that too.
My last comment on this thread will be, that Mark Hales appears to have been fked-over not only by David Piper, but by the court too (with witnesses lying and changing their testimony and witnesses in MHs favour being disregarded)!
It appears to be a travesty, but hopefully an appeal with competent counsel will follow.
ked-over not only by David Piper, but by the court too (with witnesses lying and changing their testimony and witnesses in MHs favour being disregarded)!It appears to be a travesty, but hopefully an appeal with competent counsel will follow.
GC8 said:
My last comment on this thread will be, that Mark Hales appears to have been fked-over not only by David Piper, but by the court too (with witnesses lying and changing their testimony and witnesses in MHs favour being disregarded)!
It appears to be a travesty, but hopefully an appeal with competent counsel will follow.
+1ked-over not only by David Piper, but by the court too (with witnesses lying and changing their testimony and witnesses in MHs favour being disregarded)!It appears to be a travesty, but hopefully an appeal with competent counsel will follow.
GC8 said:
One of very few knowledgeable posts on this thread from Stacy Vickers. The more you find out the poorer the light in which David Piper is shown.
When PLI was in place to settle though MHs limited company, I cant see how Pipers determination to sue MH personally, bancrupting him and leaving him homeless, can be regarded as anything other than malicious and spiteful.
What a.
I thought agtlaw advised that this wouldn't matter? I admit that was news to me when I posted earlier.When PLI was in place to settle though MHs limited company, I cant see how Pipers determination to sue MH personally, bancrupting him and leaving him homeless, can be regarded as anything other than malicious and spiteful.
What a
.At the end of the day, it all seems very simple if one reads the accounts. Mark drove the car, found a fault, reported it and was told they weren't going to fix it and that he should be careful.
At that point he could have backed out. Perhaps he was pressurised by someone else to complete the test so that the features could be published or perhaps he made that decision himself? Whatever, he chose to continue on in full knowledge of the consequences and sadly the incident happened.
Stscy's account and implications seem to state that the reason no publishers were involved was because all of this, (even the indemnity?) were in the name of Mark and not the publishers.
I am sure that for us enthusiasts, we might find that magazines cannot afford the risks involved in test driving valuable machinery and thus we'll not be able to read about how thse lovely old machines feel like to drive. I haven't looked at the TD twitter feed yet, but I would assume that this is what the thrust of the comments would be. And indeed that would be a shame.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff