RE: PH Blog: you bend you mend
Discussion
will_ said:
Terminator X said:
This particular case is embarrassing as the owner should have sucked it up imho rather than pursue the driver through the courts. Also how unfair is it for a millionaire to pursue a journalist through the courts knowing full well that it will likely bankrupt the guy (once all the court costs are accounted for) if it doesn't go his way - looking at the s
te defence it certainly seems to me like he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. stty way of behaving imho. Finally this is a quite frankly a frightening decision for all of us, heaven forbid that I crash in to the car of someone considerably better off than myself only to find that my insurance company scarpers leaving me with a hefty bill to pay ...
TX.
Ah, so rich people should suck up the mistakes of people less well off.te defence it certainly seems to me like he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. stty way of behaving imho. Finally this is a quite frankly a frightening decision for all of us, heaven forbid that I crash in to the car of someone considerably better off than myself only to find that my insurance company scarpers leaving me with a hefty bill to pay ...TX.
The wealth of the respective parties is irrelevant to the "fairness" of the decision or indeed the proceedings being commenced.
Have you read the judgement?
TX.
A few points that need clearing up I think.
1) Hales admitted in a written statement that it was a missed gear that caused the the engine to over-rev and explode. Perhaps this was due to naivety on his part but any other considerations like previous wear and tear aren't relevant as he has admitted liability in the eyes of the law (bad move).
2) Piper may be comfortable but by all accounts he isn't a wealthy millionaire. He has been fortunate enough to acquire cars which have subsequently appreciated in value but until he sells them, they are only worth millions on paper so I suspect he can't just blow off a £40k repair bill as some people are suggesting.
3) Yes Piper has been a bit of a tt for dragging it through the courts and doubling the costs when they might have been able to come to an amicable agreement but perhaps he had no choice.
I've lent my cars to friends before but I'm not naive enough to think that if the worse had happened, their wouldn't have been at least a bit of grief and hassle over it but I'd like to think that eventually we would have come to an amicable agreement, however my cars aren't worth £1m. If they were I wouldn't lend them out unless I knew I could afford to deal with any fallout or that they were covered by insurance. It appears in this case that both parties were pretty foolish for entering into an agreement that neither could afford IMO.
1) Hales admitted in a written statement that it was a missed gear that caused the the engine to over-rev and explode. Perhaps this was due to naivety on his part but any other considerations like previous wear and tear aren't relevant as he has admitted liability in the eyes of the law (bad move).
2) Piper may be comfortable but by all accounts he isn't a wealthy millionaire. He has been fortunate enough to acquire cars which have subsequently appreciated in value but until he sells them, they are only worth millions on paper so I suspect he can't just blow off a £40k repair bill as some people are suggesting.
3) Yes Piper has been a bit of a t
t for dragging it through the courts and doubling the costs when they might have been able to come to an amicable agreement but perhaps he had no choice.I've lent my cars to friends before but I'm not naive enough to think that if the worse had happened, their wouldn't have been at least a bit of grief and hassle over it but I'd like to think that eventually we would have come to an amicable agreement, however my cars aren't worth £1m. If they were I wouldn't lend them out unless I knew I could afford to deal with any fallout or that they were covered by insurance. It appears in this case that both parties were pretty foolish for entering into an agreement that neither could afford IMO.
Terminator X said:
If it were me driving and the owner specifically said to me "you break it you fix it" I would have politely declined. Jay Kay on the other hand would probably carry on. My point about wealth stands, it is a rigged system as Mr Millionaire can afford the best lawyers in the land whilst the rest of us would be royally screwed. Yes I've read it.
TX.
What is wrong with "you break it you fix it"? It's being held accountable for your actions. It is the very basis of negligence law.TX.
The best lawyers in the world can't make something out of nothing. Nor can they realistically be expected to be able to pull the wool over an experienced judge's eyes when the defendant has admitted the error. The barristers used by both parties were comparable in terms of experience (as set out in the locked thread), so that hardly seems relevant anyway.
markbigears said:
how dose £37,071 and 45p mean selling his house? I can't imagine Hales dosen't have a few bob stashed away? Reading between the lines, looking like he was told to take it easy with the gearbox, instead ragged it, blew it up. I would not be a happy owner either.
It does say on his twitter he owns historic aircraft and motorbikes...Edited by markbigears on Tuesday 22 January 14:08
will_ said:
Terminator X said:
This particular case is embarrassing as the owner should have sucked it up imho rather than pursue the driver through the courts. Also how unfair is it for a millionaire to pursue a journalist through the courts knowing full well that it will likely bankrupt the guy (once all the court costs are accounted for) if it doesn't go his way - looking at the ste defence it certainly seems to me like he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. stty way of behaving imho. Finally this is a quite frankly a frightening decision for all of us, heaven forbid that I crash in to the car of someone considerably better off than myself only to find that my insurance company scarpers leaving me with a hefty bill to pay ...
TX.
Ah, so rich people should suck up the mistakes of people less well off.te defence it certainly seems to me like he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. stty way of behaving imho. Finally this is a quite frankly a frightening decision for all of us, heaven forbid that I crash in to the car of someone considerably better off than myself only to find that my insurance company scarpers leaving me with a hefty bill to pay ...TX.
The wealth of the respective parties is irrelevant to the "fairness" of the decision or indeed the proceedings being commenced.
Have you read the judgement?
will_ said:
What is wrong with "you break it you fix it"?
because theres a massive grey area between that and 'it breaks while you're using it you fix it' which is not the agreement between most people, certainly not if you're paying for the priviledge.Edited by fbrs on Tuesday 22 January 15:16
will_ said:
What is wrong with "you break it you fix it"?
I'll tell you what's wrong with it: how do you quantify an individual user's part in the breaking of something that many others have used (hard) before him? The judgement imo should have acknowledged this but didn't. Perhaps Hales should be looking at this settlement mitigation aspect now. Edited by Blackpuddin on Tuesday 22 January 15:14
I can't believe some of the comments on this thread. Please can we have a rule that, before you post on here, you have to READ THE JUDGMENT FIRST.
Hales admitted to the insurers that it was driver error. The insurers didn't pay out. Hales then had to back-track and try and claim that his original admission "was "not accurate in some respects” and “not as clear as it should have been and in hindsight should have been worded in a different way on the basis that the gear has disengaged without necessarily fault on the part of me as the driver but distinct from otherwise a mechanical issue”. A cynical person may read this convoluted wording as being an admission that Mark actually lied to the insurance company in order to get them to pay out, although I don't suspect that is true. The judge however stated that "I find such an attempt to resile from a signed and written statement long after it was written as a self interested and cynical attempt to avoid the consequences of an uninsured judgment and substantial costs against him personally"
The court simply didn't believe Hales and his evidence was flawed. If there were issues with the build of the gearbox he could have called an expert witness, but he didn't. As a result, his case that the car was faulty and that caused the damage simply was not put well enough, and it failed. It is also pertinent that the judge considered Hales to be "a most unreliable witness whose evidence was creative, inconsistent, self motivated and incredible."
Fair enough, this is a bad day for motoring journalism, but when you make a mistake, admit to making it, and then decide to back track on that admission, you should be prepared to pay the price for that mistake.
Hales admitted to the insurers that it was driver error. The insurers didn't pay out. Hales then had to back-track and try and claim that his original admission "was "not accurate in some respects” and “not as clear as it should have been and in hindsight should have been worded in a different way on the basis that the gear has disengaged without necessarily fault on the part of me as the driver but distinct from otherwise a mechanical issue”. A cynical person may read this convoluted wording as being an admission that Mark actually lied to the insurance company in order to get them to pay out, although I don't suspect that is true. The judge however stated that "I find such an attempt to resile from a signed and written statement long after it was written as a self interested and cynical attempt to avoid the consequences of an uninsured judgment and substantial costs against him personally"
The court simply didn't believe Hales and his evidence was flawed. If there were issues with the build of the gearbox he could have called an expert witness, but he didn't. As a result, his case that the car was faulty and that caused the damage simply was not put well enough, and it failed. It is also pertinent that the judge considered Hales to be "a most unreliable witness whose evidence was creative, inconsistent, self motivated and incredible."
Fair enough, this is a bad day for motoring journalism, but when you make a mistake, admit to making it, and then decide to back track on that admission, you should be prepared to pay the price for that mistake.
fbrs said:
will_ said:
Terminator X said:
This particular case is embarrassing as the owner should have sucked it up imho rather than pursue the driver through the courts. Also how unfair is it for a millionaire to pursue a journalist through the courts knowing full well that it will likely bankrupt the guy (once all the court costs are accounted for) if it doesn't go his way - looking at the ste defence it certainly seems to me like he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. stty way of behaving imho. Finally this is a quite frankly a frightening decision for all of us, heaven forbid that I crash in to the car of someone considerably better off than myself only to find that my insurance company scarpers leaving me with a hefty bill to pay ...
TX.
Ah, so rich people should suck up the mistakes of people less well off.te defence it certainly seems to me like he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. stty way of behaving imho. Finally this is a quite frankly a frightening decision for all of us, heaven forbid that I crash in to the car of someone considerably better off than myself only to find that my insurance company scarpers leaving me with a hefty bill to pay ...TX.
The wealth of the respective parties is irrelevant to the "fairness" of the decision or indeed the proceedings being commenced.
Have you read the judgement?
Firstly I'm not angry.
Second, people are entitled to their opinion, as am I. This is a discussion forum. I just find the attitude that Piper should just take this on the chin bizarre.
Thirdly, who said that David Piper chose "to cripple" Mark Hales with legal costs?
Fourthly, why should David Piper pay for Mark Hales' admitted mistake "just" because it appears he can afford to? This was a commercial relationship.
When you borrow something from someone you take the risk that you will need to repair or replace it if it gets damaged due to your negligence, handshake or no handshake.
Blackpuddin said:
will_ said:
What is wrong with "you break it you fix it"?
I'll tell you what's wrong with it: how do you quantify an individual user's part in the breaking of something that many others have used (hard) before him? The judgement imo should have acknowledged this but didn't. Perhaps Hales should be looking at this settlement mitigation aspect now. Edited by Blackpuddin on Tuesday 22 January 15:14
In the judgment it also said that even if MH account of the events had been completely accurate and the engine letting go was due to a pre-existing fault with the gearbox, then as MH was aware fo the fault he still would have been liable for the costs.
SO the driver "caused" a mechanical failure that shredded the transmission!?
Really is that what happened? I know these cars have a lot of power and are difficult to drive and I can understand if he'd highsided it into a grandstand or something but can one really be held responsible for stripping a gear or breaking a clutch on such an old racing car?
Piper sounds like a knob to me.
Really is that what happened? I know these cars have a lot of power and are difficult to drive and I can understand if he'd highsided it into a grandstand or something but can one really be held responsible for stripping a gear or breaking a clutch on such an old racing car?
Piper sounds like a knob to me.
God what a mess, I don't feel qualified to comment on who is in the right and who is in the wrong, but 3 things have become clear to me.
If I ever own a very rare, fragile race car, with a reputation for going bang, even if it's made up of spare parts – I won’t lend it to someone to drive on a race track expecting it to come back as it left. In fact, if I don't want it getting damaged I’ll stick it on a plinth and be done with it.
If someone ever lends me (or rather rents me) a very rare, fragile race car with a reputation for going bang, I won't expect them to act as if it's "one of those things" if it goes wrong, I’ll think about that before agreeing to put something that's worth more than everything I own in the world in harms way.
And David Piper is never going to see anything he owns on the pages of a magazine again.
If I ever own a very rare, fragile race car, with a reputation for going bang, even if it's made up of spare parts – I won’t lend it to someone to drive on a race track expecting it to come back as it left. In fact, if I don't want it getting damaged I’ll stick it on a plinth and be done with it.
If someone ever lends me (or rather rents me) a very rare, fragile race car with a reputation for going bang, I won't expect them to act as if it's "one of those things" if it goes wrong, I’ll think about that before agreeing to put something that's worth more than everything I own in the world in harms way.
And David Piper is never going to see anything he owns on the pages of a magazine again.
Blackpuddin said:
will_ said:
What is wrong with "you break it you fix it"?
I'll tell you what's wrong with it: how do you quantify an individual user's part in the breaking of something that many others have used (hard) before him? The judgement imo should have acknowledged this but didn't. Perhaps Hales should be looking at this settlement mitigation aspect now. Edited by Blackpuddin on Tuesday 22 January 15:14
Life Saab Itch said:
Well said.
It throws up a multitude of complicated issues.
The trouble with gentlemen's agreements, is that both parties have to act like gentlemen, even if the.st hits the.fan.
Exactly this, both parties are aware of what can go wrong, especially the owner of the car. If I was in the financial position to own,use and run cars like a 917 and 250LM I'd accept that mechanical failures are likely and if/when they happen the bill would be paid. It throws up a multitude of complicated issues.
The trouble with gentlemen's agreements, is that both parties have to act like gentlemen, even if the.s
t hits the.fan.If you choose to allow your passion to be shared with the world you should occasionally be prepared for the price that comes with it imo. If the journalist/magazine/production company can contribute to the costs then all is well.
Dr Boxcat said:
Taken from the judgement
--
The Defendant himself composed a signed and dated (3 June 2009) detailed
note for Octane’s insurers relatively shortly after the incident. This included
the frank admission that:
"There was no fault apparent with the car before this incident, and I admit
the damage to the engine was caused by my failure to select the gear
correctly”.
--
thats kinda the end of it. poor Mark, what an awful situation to be in.
This + 1,000,000--
The Defendant himself composed a signed and dated (3 June 2009) detailed
note for Octane’s insurers relatively shortly after the incident. This included
the frank admission that:
"There was no fault apparent with the car before this incident, and I admit
the damage to the engine was caused by my failure to select the gear
correctly”.
--
thats kinda the end of it. poor Mark, what an awful situation to be in.
Whilst it is touching that the PH community wants to dip into their communal pockets to help out a journo I think the piece written here by Chris Harris is, as admitted, thoroughly with prejudice.
I think there are a few salient points to be taken on board before any more of the stupid "he's rich, he can afford it" comments get posted.
1. Mark Hales was writing this piece because he thought, even after the fee for use, it would be a lucrative money making opportunity for him. He was doing it for personal gain and not out of the kindness of his heart for the car community.
2. His legal fees are estimated to be in the 50k region and as such he could have paid up early on before court and saved himself a huge amount. The bigger issue here is that there must have been a considerable breakdown in the relationship between the 2 men. I'm sure if he'd said early on "I'm sorry, how about I pay 20k to the repair cost" then the gentleman's agreement would still have held strong. The 10k claim for loss of use is probably due to being pissed off about having to take this all the way to court. Both parties have not come out of this looking particularly well.
3. The judgement is soooooo one-sided in favour of Mr Piper it really needs to be read by everyone before commenting. Hales said there was nothing wrong with the car before taking it out. He was shown how to drive it and specifically told to engage the gears properly. After it blew up he acknowledged that it was his fault and caused by "driver error", but I guess he presumed that Octane's insurance were going to pay for it then.
So for all those saying "he's rich, why doesn't he just pay for it" think of it the other way. Here's my car, please drive it exactly like this, do not do that or you will blow it up". Then they do that and blow it up. Are you not entitled to get them to repair it?
Essentially, cars aside, this is a story or a businessman making an unsound judgement in the course of his business and not getting adequate liability insurance. Rather than then admit fault and pay up he chose to fight it in court when the evidence appears to be overwhelmingly against him. It's a sad situation and I feel for him but if he has his house to lose he doesn't really have anyone to blame but himself.
(Prepares flames suit - but this is just how I see it)
fbrs said:
that one side should choose to cripple the other with legal costs
One side can't choose to do that, only if the other doesn't play ball. Court proceedings are routes of last resort and if Piper didn't try to engage in dialogue / negotiation then he'd struggle to get his costs back, even though succesful.Again, lawyers could have (and might have) helped Hales to protect his position on costs of all of this.
People avoid paying lawyers and insurance costs before the event (whether testing a car, building a building or whatever else) in the hope that everything will be OK and everyone involved will be thoroughly decent, so let's save a bit of cash on the project. You can't change the clock when it doesn't go as expected though and then you end up paying far more or carrying far more risk than would otherwise have been the case.
Although I have an amount of sympathy for Mark, I still think it was ultimately his fault.
How is missing a gear and over revving the engine any different from stuffing it in the armco? It was driver error which he admitted, he had no insurance and was probably on a "you bend it you mend it" type of gentlemans agreement.... all of which was his choice.
I can not understand why so many people here are vilifying David Piper, seemingly on the basis that he should be more able to afford paying the bill. If it was a 40 year old engine component that had simply failed, I think Mark would be in the right, but that is not what happened. I doubt whether this went straight from engine blown to litigation. It is a horrible and unlucky thing to happen, but should you not bear some of the responsibility for your own actions?
How is missing a gear and over revving the engine any different from stuffing it in the armco? It was driver error which he admitted, he had no insurance and was probably on a "you bend it you mend it" type of gentlemans agreement.... all of which was his choice.
I can not understand why so many people here are vilifying David Piper, seemingly on the basis that he should be more able to afford paying the bill. If it was a 40 year old engine component that had simply failed, I think Mark would be in the right, but that is not what happened. I doubt whether this went straight from engine blown to litigation. It is a horrible and unlucky thing to happen, but should you not bear some of the responsibility for your own actions?
R11ysf said:
This + 1,000,000
Whilst it is touching that the PH community wants to dip into their communal pockets to help out a journo I think the piece written here by Chris Harris is, as admitted, thoroughly with prejudice.
I think there are a few salient points to be taken on board before any more of the stupid "he's rich, he can afford it" comments get posted.
1. Mark Hales was writing this piece because he thought, even after the fee for use, it would be a lucrative money making opportunity for him. He was doing it for personal gain and not out of the kindness of his heart for the car community.
2. His legal fees are estimated to be in the 50k region and as such he could have paid up early on before court and saved himself a huge amount. The bigger issue here is that there must have been a considerable breakdown in the relationship between the 2 men. I'm sure if he'd said early on "I'm sorry, how about I pay 20k to the repair cost" then the gentleman's agreement would still have held strong. The 10k claim for loss of use is probably due to being pissed off about having to take this all the way to court. Both parties have not come out of this looking particularly well.
3. The judgement is soooooo one-sided in favour of Mr Piper it really needs to be read by everyone before commenting. Hales said there was nothing wrong with the car before taking it out. He was shown how to drive it and specifically told to engage the gears properly. After it blew up he acknowledged that it was his fault and caused by "driver error", but I guess he presumed that Octane's insurance were going to pay for it then.
So for all those saying "he's rich, why doesn't he just pay for it" think of it the other way. Here's my car, please drive it exactly like this, do not do that or you will blow it up". Then they do that and blow it up. Are you not entitled to get them to repair it?
Essentially, cars aside, this is a story or a businessman making an unsound judgement in the course of his business and not getting adequate liability insurance. Rather than then admit fault and pay up he chose to fight it in court when the evidence appears to be overwhelmingly against him. It's a sad situation and I feel for him but if he has his house to lose he doesn't really have anyone to blame but himself.
(Prepares flames suit - but this is just how I see it)
Could not agree moreWhilst it is touching that the PH community wants to dip into their communal pockets to help out a journo I think the piece written here by Chris Harris is, as admitted, thoroughly with prejudice.
I think there are a few salient points to be taken on board before any more of the stupid "he's rich, he can afford it" comments get posted.
1. Mark Hales was writing this piece because he thought, even after the fee for use, it would be a lucrative money making opportunity for him. He was doing it for personal gain and not out of the kindness of his heart for the car community.
2. His legal fees are estimated to be in the 50k region and as such he could have paid up early on before court and saved himself a huge amount. The bigger issue here is that there must have been a considerable breakdown in the relationship between the 2 men. I'm sure if he'd said early on "I'm sorry, how about I pay 20k to the repair cost" then the gentleman's agreement would still have held strong. The 10k claim for loss of use is probably due to being pissed off about having to take this all the way to court. Both parties have not come out of this looking particularly well.
3. The judgement is soooooo one-sided in favour of Mr Piper it really needs to be read by everyone before commenting. Hales said there was nothing wrong with the car before taking it out. He was shown how to drive it and specifically told to engage the gears properly. After it blew up he acknowledged that it was his fault and caused by "driver error", but I guess he presumed that Octane's insurance were going to pay for it then.
So for all those saying "he's rich, why doesn't he just pay for it" think of it the other way. Here's my car, please drive it exactly like this, do not do that or you will blow it up". Then they do that and blow it up. Are you not entitled to get them to repair it?
Essentially, cars aside, this is a story or a businessman making an unsound judgement in the course of his business and not getting adequate liability insurance. Rather than then admit fault and pay up he chose to fight it in court when the evidence appears to be overwhelmingly against him. It's a sad situation and I feel for him but if he has his house to lose he doesn't really have anyone to blame but himself.
(Prepares flames suit - but this is just how I see it)
fbrs said:
because theres a massive grey area between that and 'it breaks while you're using it you fix it' which is not the agreement between most people, certainly not if you're paying for the priviledge.
But as you've read the judgement, you know that isn't what happened here.If the car had simply broken down whilst Mark was driving it, it would be a much much harder claim for David Piper to make.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff