Discussion
bqf said:
Why should Hales settle?
Because the court so ordered? He isn't fighting Piper any more, that battle has been lost, he's now up against the legal system.If anyone ever needed an example of why you shouldn't go to court on principle then this case is text book, it's a court of law not a court of justice and sentiment, sympathy and fair play are completely absent from the judge's decision making process. I have some sympathy for Hales legal team, he doesn't come across as a co-operative client.
bqf said:
Why should Hales settle? The car developed a fault while he was driving it, they had a gentlemens agreement that Piper was liable for mechanicals (he even brought a mechanic!), so why should he have settled?
I suspect you have some strong connection to Piper.
He has to settle because a judge told him toI suspect you have some strong connection to Piper.
Not difficult to understand, surely?
I asked what the offer was because he apparently made one
Getlemans agreement, not for damage caused by a serious over rev they didnt, you need to read up on Pipers history, he has stated in print previously he will not be responsible for damage caused by driver error as admitted by Hales (at least until Hales insurers told him they werent paying out)
And of course Piper brought a mechanic, how else do you think you get a 917 up and running ready for a days use on track?
I imagine I have as strong a connection to David Piper as you have to Mark Hales
If I owned and lent a £1.25m car to a Journo to test drive for the day - having already advised the driver that the "gear change was difficult and the car complex to drive" then I would have taken more than one mechanic!!
This lack of preparation on & off the track (no suitable agreement in place for mechanical failure) doesn't reflect well on Piper. Having had cars insured before On track, he would have been fully aware that mechancial failure wasn't covered. I'm flabbergasted he didn't protect his investment more thoroughly.
Then I'm equally flabbergasted that Octane/Hayes undertook the test without a solid agreement in place. It beggers belief really.
And for those that keep mentioning that Insurers refused to pay out - for the final time, there is no such insurance for mechancial breakdown and so they had no liability at all.
This lack of preparation on & off the track (no suitable agreement in place for mechanical failure) doesn't reflect well on Piper. Having had cars insured before On track, he would have been fully aware that mechancial failure wasn't covered. I'm flabbergasted he didn't protect his investment more thoroughly.
Then I'm equally flabbergasted that Octane/Hayes undertook the test without a solid agreement in place. It beggers belief really.
And for those that keep mentioning that Insurers refused to pay out - for the final time, there is no such insurance for mechancial breakdown and so they had no liability at all.
MMC Andy said:
If I owned and lent a £1.25m car to a Journo to test drive for the day - having already advised the driver that the "gear change was difficult and the car complex to drive" then I would have taken more than one mechanic!!
This lack of preparation on & off the track (no suitable agreement in place for mechanical failure) doesn't reflect well on Piper.
What lack of preperation? There is no suggestion the car was poorly preparedThis lack of preparation on & off the track (no suitable agreement in place for mechanical failure) doesn't reflect well on Piper.
And you dont need mechanics to explain to a journo that the car is difficult to drive. His job was to prep the car and run it up so that Hales could drive it. Not even an army of mechanics can prevent someone over revving the engine
From what Ive read, though I'm not 100%, Nick Mason only had 1 mechanic with his 512 on the same day, are you going to say that was poorly prepared?
bqf said:
Exactly. No further questions your worships.
You appear to be completely ignoring the fact that the case has been to court and Hales lost, comprehensively. Even on his own evidence the judge would have found against him. If Piper had lost then I'm sure that would have been the end of it.MMC Andy said:
And for those that keep mentioning that Insurers refused to pay out - for the final time, there is no such insurance for mechancial breakdown and so they had no liability at all.
There is insurance for negligence though. Many professionals have professional indemnity insurance which would cover the situation Mark Hales found himself in. heebeegeetee said:
Sorry to ask a basic question, but is it the case that a court has decided the engine blew because of driver error, and the insurers have decided it was a mechanical failure?
yes, i thought that was inconsistent. is there a difference between driver error - spinning off into the armco, and misshifting/overrevving?
if the judge rules it was driver error, why aren't the insurers back on the hook?
i'd be interested to know what your connection with piper is freedman - it comes across as quite close/strong. i don't know either, nor anything about either, or have any bias. neither come out well, piper slightly worse imo, and yes i have read the verdict.
///ajd said:
heebeegeetee said:
Sorry to ask a basic question, but is it the case that a court has decided the engine blew because of driver error, and the insurers have decided it was a mechanical failure?
yes, i thought that was inconsistent. is there a difference between driver error - spinning off into the armco, and misshifting/overrevving?
if the judge rules it was driver error, why aren't the insurers back on the hook?
i'd be interested to know what your connection with piper is freedman - it comes across as quite close/strong. i don't know either, nor anything about either, or have any bias. neither come out well, piper slightly worse imo, and yes i have read the verdict.
Finlandese said:
///ajd said:
heebeegeetee said:
Sorry to ask a basic question, but is it the case that a court has decided the engine blew because of driver error, and the insurers have decided it was a mechanical failure?
yes, i thought that was inconsistent. is there a difference between driver error - spinning off into the armco, and misshifting/overrevving?
if the judge rules it was driver error, why aren't the insurers back on the hook?
i'd be interested to know what your connection with piper is freedman - it comes across as quite close/strong. i don't know either, nor anything about either, or have any bias. neither come out well, piper slightly worse imo, and yes i have read the verdict.
///ajd said:
i'd be interested to know what your connection with piper is freedman - it comes across as quite close/strong. .
Blimey, I have no connection with him at all (barring a love of 917's I guess), and having met him once abour 3 years ago, but I have little doubt he would have no recollection of who on earth I am were he to bump into me at Goodwood, for instance.However I happen to have an opinion on the matter and have stated it clearly. My opiniomn is based on the published facts and not on the fact that Mark hales is a great bloke, unfairly ruined by Piper. As Hales supporters have repeated here on other media ad nauseum.
There has effectively been a campaign on Hales side to paint him as the victim and Piper as the big bad wolf
The nasty old rich man against the poor jobbing journo, who everyone knows and loves
Of course this is wrong on both sides, as Piper isnt being 'nasty' and Hales isnt the poverty stricken destitute his team are trying to pint him out
Problem is it's become a circular argument, as positions are entrenched, only some new to the story this week were not posting about it when it hit the press earlier in the year
skwdenyer said:
freedman said:
and Hales isnt the poverty stricken destitute his team are trying to pint him out
This is no longer hypothetical; Hales has been declared bankrupt. I would say the rhetoric of the Hales camp has been supported by events.sanf said:
Finlandese said:
///ajd said:
heebeegeetee said:
Sorry to ask a basic question, but is it the case that a court has decided the engine blew because of driver error, and the insurers have decided it was a mechanical failure?
yes, i thought that was inconsistent. is there a difference between driver error - spinning off into the armco, and misshifting/overrevving?
if the judge rules it was driver error, why aren't the insurers back on the hook?
i'd be interested to know what your connection with piper is freedman - it comes across as quite close/strong. i don't know either, nor anything about either, or have any bias. neither come out well, piper slightly worse imo, and yes i have read the verdict.
I do find it interesting the way Octanes insurance company were able to renege on paying out on the claim despite accepting that the damage to the engine was due to driver error.
Driver error (which was covered) caused the over rev but the the over rev caused mechanical breakdown (which was not covered).
Taken from the court judgement.......
The matter was pursued by Octane through its insurers. After protracted correspondence, the insurers (RSA) accepted (by letter dated 14 July 2010) that the cause of the engine damage was “driver error” but averred that the damage was not insured under the policy because of the exclusion of damage “as a result of mechanical breakdown”: the proximate cause of the damage to the engine was caused by the over revving of the engine and so specifically excluded from cover under the terms of the policy issued.
Maybe MH and his team would have been better served spending their money pursuing the insurance company.
Driver error (which was covered) caused the over rev but the the over rev caused mechanical breakdown (which was not covered).
Taken from the court judgement.......
The matter was pursued by Octane through its insurers. After protracted correspondence, the insurers (RSA) accepted (by letter dated 14 July 2010) that the cause of the engine damage was “driver error” but averred that the damage was not insured under the policy because of the exclusion of damage “as a result of mechanical breakdown”: the proximate cause of the damage to the engine was caused by the over revving of the engine and so specifically excluded from cover under the terms of the policy issued.
Maybe MH and his team would have been better served spending their money pursuing the insurance company.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff