RE: PH Blog: you bend you mend

[heebeegeetee]

hairykrishna said:

People breaking your car are part of running a classic? I don't think so.

He said historic racing car, not classic.

[hairykrishna]

heebeegeetee said:

He said historic racing car, not classic.

Ok, so running a historic racing car involves soaking up the cost if someone who hired it from you breaks it? Why should it?

[Gary C]

hairykrishna said:

heebeegeetee said:

He said historic racing car, not classic.

Ok, so running a historic racing car involves soaking up the cost if someone who hired it from you breaks it? Why should it?

What gets me in this case is the disparity between the cost of the rebuild and the price the car was sold for shortly after. Was the owner was in financial difficulties?

I hope to think I would have been gracious in the same circumstance not to take a man for everything. The legal case I could not comment on.

[hairykrishna]

I don't think he 'took him for everything'. I'm sure MH could have found the money to pay for the rebuild - flogging a plane and some other stuff for example. It's hardly Pipers fault that MH chose to fight a legal battle he couldn't win and ran up another hundred grand or so.

Basically this argument is returning to 'he's rich, he should pay' which I don't find particularly persuasive.

[Gary C]

hairykrishna said:

I don't think he 'took him for everything'. I'm sure MH could have found the money to pay for the rebuild - flogging a plane and some other stuff for example. It's hardly Pipers fault that MH chose to fight a legal battle he couldn't win and ran up another hundred grand or so.

Basically this argument is returning to 'he's rich, he should pay' which I don't find particularly persuasive.

I pity you

[fuchsiasteve]

Gary C said:

I pity you

Haha me too. This discussion reminds me of that tipping scene in reservoir dogs:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-qV9wVGb38

Now stop bhing and get donating folks!

[julian64]

Anyone know how much the fund has made yet?

[hairykrishna]

Gary C said:

I pity you

You pity me? Because I think someone should take responsibility for their actions?

[jhoneyball]

Has there been any statement of how the fund is going? The lack of info on this front is somewhat suspicious now

[therealpigdog]

Gary C said:

What gets me in this case is the disparity between the cost of the rebuild and the price the car was sold for shortly after. Was the owner was in financial difficulties?

I hope to think I would have been gracious in the same circumstance not to take a man for everything. The legal case I could not comment on.

And yet you are - you seem to be suggesting that despite the finding of the court it should be the case that the richer person should always pay for the poorer person's mistakes.

Interesting concept - so you crash your car into my house and I have to rebuild part of it. If the building work costs £50k yet I then sell the house for £1.5m then somehow that absolves you of any responsibility to pay for the rebuilding costs?

[KaraK]

heebeegeetee said:

We all chip in to worthy causes anyway, and then occasionally another one comes along which is closer to our hearts.

It's a very selfish attitude you have there. As a car enthusiast I am deeply greatful for having been able to read about the great cars of history over the years. But if it means someone is going to lose his shirt every tiome a car goes pop (and to paraphrase Nick Mason, it's largely a matter of chance as to who is at the wheel when these engines let go) then we arent going to read about these cars anymore.

I'm happy to help the cause. It would be very selfish not to.

heebee - given what you see as the "worthy cause" is the continuance of the availability of these sorts of cars for articles etc would you have felt as inclined to help out Piper if he's been stuck with the cost? I'm not having a dig or anything as I've been thinking about what circumstances I would and wouldn't donate, in this case as is I have precisely zero inclination to do so but thinking about if Hales had taken it on the chin to start with and appealed for help I probably would have done.

Gary C said:

What gets me in this case is the disparity between the cost of the rebuild and the price the car was sold for shortly after. Was the owner was in financial difficulties?

I hope to think I would have been gracious in the same circumstance not to take a man for everything. The legal case I could not comment on.

Not sure on your definition of "shortly after" but the car was sold some 3 years after the incident ( source)

[Gary C]

KaraK said:

Gary C said:

What gets me in this case is the disparity between the cost of the rebuild and the price the car was sold for shortly after. Was the owner was in financial difficulties?

I hope to think I would have been gracious in the same circumstance not to take a man for everything. The legal case I could not comment on.

Not sure on your definition of "shortly after" but the car was sold some 3 years after the incident ( source)

Fair enough, I missed that point.

[alexwagner]

Mark was perhaps clumsy with his initial written statement, and then compounded this with a bad decision to go to court (racking up huge legal costs) rather than just settle the damage.

And yet.

And yet, Mark didn't sign up to put his home, future livelihood and sanity on the line in order to drive a millionaire's car for a magazine feature.

Clearly.

[10 Pence Short]

Erm, if that's the position he's in, clearly he did.

That it was "common practice" for owners to pay for drivers' negligence, shouldn't be an estopple of owners' rights, should they wish to assert them.

Rather than villifying the owner in this case, people should think themselves lucky they have not found themselves in this position and have sound agreements in place before getting in the car.

[bigblock]

KaraK said:

....I'm not having a dig or anything as I've been thinking about what circumstances I would and wouldn't donate, in this case as is I have precisely zero inclination to do so but thinking about if Hales had taken it on the chin to start with and appealed for help I probably would have done.

I would also have been more inclined to help out with the original repair bill if MH was having difficulties raising that amount. It was an unfortunate situation he found himself in and could have been remedied for a relatively small amount of money at the time.

The situation he now finds himself in requires a very substantial amount of money to remedy and appears to have been caused by his own decision to go to court rather than settle. A decision which given the evidence available to the other side was doomed to failure from the outset.

[philbennett]

10 Pence Short said:

Erm, if that's the position he's in, clearly he did.

That it was "common practice" for owners to pay for drivers' negligence, shouldn't be an estopple of owners' rights, should they wish to assert them.

Rather than villifying the owner in this case, people should think themselves lucky they have not found themselves in this position and have sound agreements in place before getting in the car.

Easy of course to make such comments from the comfort of your armchair, as we can see from Stuart Forrest's seeming reluctance to give an industry view its less clear cut when you are involved.

[10 Pence Short]

I don't doubt that the issue going to court has made a few eyes sting in the industry. Perhaps an awful lot of people, owners and drivers alike, have become far too complacent and this judgment is the tonic required to wake them up.

Working with others' property (potentially worth millions of pounds) in commercial situations, without formal written agreements about what will happen if it goes wrong, is madness.

Piper taking a driver to court shouldn't be the bit that raises eyebrows, the lack of written agreements in the first place should.

[philbennett]

10p - I don't know what business you are in but if you needed a piece of paper signed by someone in any kind of authority with the jobs I've done automotive wise its impossible.

As example :- who signs this stuff off???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz34WxTjSt8

[10 Pence Short]

philbennett said:

10p - I don't know what business you are in but if you needed a piece of paper signed by someone in any kind of authority with the jobs I've done automotive wise its impossible.

As example :- who signs this stuff off???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz34WxTjSt8

In the example you've posted, I would imagine that each vehicle was covered by an insurance policy that would reimburse the owner in the event of an accident.

On track, that is not so easy, as I'd imagine policies are either too expensive to be commercially viable or unavailable. In which case, the owner and driver should protect one another by having a written agreement between them. Otherwise, the owner is at risk from the drivers' potential negligence and the driver from the owner reneging on verbal agreements.

Until recently I was involved in the sea kayak industry. Our kayaks only retailed for £2500 or so, but we wouldn't let a magazine tester near one of our kayaks until we'd established their liability for any (very likely) damage.

[philbennett]

10 Pence Short said:

In the example you've posted, I would imagine that each vehicle was covered by an insurance policy that would reimburse the owner in the event of an accident.

Err - well in the above case the Ferrari was driven by me and was owned by Ferrari S.p.A. The Porsche by Chris Harris and owned by Porsche AG. I think the bigger issue is what if we had shunted and taken out 20 cars in the tunnel? Obviously the risk is managed by professional drivers but I don't see anyone wanting to write that risk, nor indeed propose the above as something being done.

Thing is you read things from good journo's like Chris, Steve Sutcliffe, Dickie Meaden and it means something because they have driven on the limit otherwise you get the rubbish written by people who have no idea.

10 Pence Short said:

On track, that is not so easy, as I'd imagine policies are either too expensive to be commercially viable or unavailable. In which case, the owner and driver should protect one another by having a written agreement between them. Otherwise, the owner is at risk from the drivers' potential negligence and the driver from the owner reneging on verbal agreements.

I'd argue given the above that actually driving on track is less risk than on the road given the potential 3rd party claims. Vis driver negligence what is that exactly? How is it defined and who defines it?

10 Pence Short said:

Until recently I was involved in the sea kayak industry. Our kayaks only retailed for £2500 or so, but we wouldn't let a magazine tester near one of our kayaks until we'd established their liability for any (very likely) damage.

Although you might accept that some might take a view that the 6 page article might have a value marketing wise and perhaps £2500 kayak destroyed for £2500 of marketing means net/net you are flat?