'You bend it, you mend it' - Piper sues Hales

[freedman]

That clears that up then, I thought his original car would be worth far more than 1.3m

[rubystone]

GC8 said:

A pretty damning indictment and something for the 'David Piper is a gentleman of great experience and integrity' fraternity to consider.

Edited by GC8 on Saturday 19th January 12:48

Reading all of this is very very interesting. As I said on another thread, two guys at Autosport discussed an event very similar to this where the engine was buzzed on a 917. In that situation, the tester had discovered/was aware of the fault but because the feature hadn't been completed and because the cost of the insurance for that car for the day was expensive, elected to hope for the best in order to complete the feature....in other words the tester continued in full knowledge.

I am not saying that this story that I overheard is related to the Piper one, but imagine if one little detail had not been revealed in an account that might tip the balance one way...imagine if the tester in this case HAD been aware of the fault and HAD elected to 'hope for the best'...would we then denigrate the owner of the car for suing that person?

[rubystone]

EDLT said:

This one didn't 'fail at random' it was either driver error or a fault with the gearbox (which to driver knew about).

I guess that is what I was trying to say in my other posting. If the tester was aware of the fault, it follows that if he still elected to drive the car, he was aware of the risk he was taking...

[rubystone]

George111 said:

It's easy for wealth to win in court against a man of average means, in case you weren't aware

The fact that the owner of a £1.3m car chooses to financially ruin a journalist who had already paid him £2k for a few laps does, in my mind, bring into doubt the integrity and decency of the car's owner. Decent people just don't do that - it's nasty and leaves a very bad taste. Like the school bully.

The £2k was paid by Dennis Publishing, not an impecunious journalist. Bear that in mind..and it appears that not everything is in the public domain...courts don't just toss a coin when they make a decision. They consider the facts presented to them. I have no axe to grind here, but let's keep this real.

[One Shot]

Perhaps Piper will owe Hales a small portion of the substantial price he received for the 917, after all having a fresh engine must have enhanced its value (being a bitsa, it's value will be for its usability). I am not sure of the rev limit for a healthy 917 is, but I am sure it is at least 8000rpm, so a quick blip to 8200 blowing up the engine would suggest it was already knackered. This is a very sad state of affairs, I hope Mark is able to mount a appeal against the ruling - perhaps the Guild of Motoring Writers should step in (he is a member).

[Tankslider]

Rubystone, you are pretty good at denigrating a mans integrity with implication though. Lets keep it real, eh?

[rubystone]

Tankslider said:

Rubystone, you are pretty good at denigrating a mans integrity with implication though. Lets keep it real, eh?

Not sure what you mean by that. But having seen who you are linked to, I can understand why you made that remark...and yes, you of course know Mark Hales better than I do, given your association with him.

[Steve H]

rubystone said:

GC8 said:

A pretty damning indictment and something for the 'David Piper is a gentleman of great experience and integrity' fraternity to consider.

Edited by GC8 on Saturday 19th January 12:48

Reading all of this is very very interesting. As I said on another thread, two guys at Autosport discussed an event very similar to this where the engine was buzzed on a 917. In that situation, the tester had discovered/was aware of the fault but because the feature hadn't been completed and because the cost of the insurance for that car for the day was expensive, elected to hope for the best in order to complete the feature....in other words the tester continued in full knowledge.

I am not saying that this story that I overheard is related to the Piper one, but imagine if one little detail had not been revealed in an account that might tip the balance one way...imagine if the tester in this case HAD been aware of the fault and HAD elected to 'hope for the best'...would we then denigrate the owner of the car for suing that person?

Ultimately it was the owner that stood the most obvious risk and so should bear the responsibility. If we can rely on MH's comments, the owner (or his staff) had been informed about the fault and potential for damage but told the driver to continue when they could have repaired or withdrawn the car. Put that together with the relative financial positions of a millionaire car owner and a jobbing racer/writer and I'd say the case was pretty bad form.

[Tankslider]

rubystone said:

Tankslider said:

Rubystone, you are pretty good at denigrating a mans integrity with implication though. Lets keep it real, eh?

Not sure what you mean by that. But having seen who you are linked to, I can understand why you made that remark...and yes, you of course know Mark Hales better than I do, given your association with him.

Yup, I know Mark pretty well, and David Piper not at all. You ask for the facts to be considered and then recount Autosport gossip about an identical situation.

Only it isn't identical. Wasn't Mark's magazine, Mark was employed here as a tester. He'll have pulled it together, no-one else has access to Nick Mason's cars, but the idea that he would be reckless with the cars under test is simply wrong. He's scrupulously professional, and no, he's not a rich man. David Piper knew both those things from the outset, even if he denies that the gentleman's agreement conversation took place.

[freedman]

Steve H said:

Ultimately it was the owner that stood the most obvious risk and so should bear the responsibility. If we can rely on MH's comments, the owner (or his staff) had been informed about the fault and potential for damage but told the driver to continue when they could have repaired or withdrawn the car. Put that together with the relative financial positions of a millionaire car owner and a jobbing racer/writer and I'd say the case was pretty bad form.

We've heard one party;s version of events

The court heard both and found in Pipers favour

No idea why you would think any car owner should bear the resposibility for anothers error

relative finiancial positions should have nothing to do with the right and wromg of the case

[agtlaw]

freedman said:

We've heard one party;s version of events

The court heard both and found in Pipers favour

Quite. I'll post the judgment here when I get it.

[rubystone]

Tankslider said:

Yup, I know Mark pretty well, and David Piper not at all. You ask for the facts to be considered and then recount Autosport gossip about an identical situation.

Fair comment Jim. As you say, we should stick to the facts. Our handicap I guess is that we do not know the full facts.

What's interesting here is that whilst it is clear that Mark was testing for a Dennis publication, the fact that they did not assume responsibility suggests that he was acting in his own name...and that includes the warranty that was paid too...that must have been in his own name, otherwise, as an employee of Dennis, he'd have been 'protected'?

I think that if I ever became awere a journo testing such valuable cars, I would do it as an employee of my own company and thus limit my liability!

Sorry, eta to add that I see that Octane offered to settle out of court ( I think I read that correctly) so they did get involved...and therefore assume responsibility...but the fact that the case is against Mark is, I guess, down to his being a freelance.

Edited by rubystone on Saturday 19th January 19:25

[George111]

rubystone said:

George111 said:

It's easy for wealth to win in court against a man of average means, in case you weren't aware

The fact that the owner of a £1.3m car chooses to financially ruin a journalist who had already paid him £2k for a few laps does, in my mind, bring into doubt the integrity and decency of the car's owner. Decent people just don't do that - it's nasty and leaves a very bad taste. Like the school bully.

The £2k was paid by Dennis Publishing, not an impecunious journalist. Bear that in mind..and it appears that not everything is in the public domain...courts don't just toss a coin when they make a decision. They consider the facts presented to them. I have no axe to grind here, but let's keep this real.

I have no axe to use or to grind either and have never met either of them and never even heard of the owner but for one man to drag another through the legal system for him to be financially ruined (or close to it) when the other is clearly on another financial level, for almost any reason, is bullying, rude, ungentlemanly and crass. The courts are not always right, evidence presented is not always true and money is able to manipulate the legal system in a way which makes it unfair. Had Mark Hales stolen something or attacked him violently then there might be a valid reason to go to such lengths but it's about repairs to a car . . . (albeit a rather special car, but still a car) sometimes people get so wrapped up in their own pride and self righteousness that they can't think sensibly and loose touch with reality and this, on the info above, sounds like one of those situations.

[agtlaw]

rubystone said:

I think that if I ever became awere a journo testing such valuable cars, I would do it as an employee of my own company and thus limit my liability!

that wouldn't work. well, only as to breach of contract. it still leaves open a negligence action against the driver.

the obvious point is that Mr Justice Simon Brown QC didn't think much of the Hales mechanical defect defence.

an appeal would cost big money. false economy to instruct cheap lawyers.

[Stinkfoot]

This comment "if you bend it you mend it" is bothering me in this case. I take that to mean if Hales crashes it then he will agree to cover the repair costs. Nothing to do with mechanical failure. Of course I am no legal eagle so this is just my 3rd party observation but I would be amazed if Hales loses the case.

[freedman]

Stinkfoot said:

This comment "if you bend it you mend it" is bothering me in this case. I take that to mean if Hales crashes it then he will agree to cover the repair costs. Nothing to do with mechanical failure. Of course I am no legal eagle so this is just my 3rd party observation but I would be amazed if Hales loses the case.

He has already lost the case

[Wollcage]

Has he not lost it? Maybe I've misunderstood those third person ramblings.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

agtlaw said:

false economy to instruct cheap lawyers.

My accountant says the same about accountants Andrew

[Steve H]

agtlaw said:

rubystone said:

I think that if I ever became awere a journo testing such valuable cars, I would do it as an employee of my own company and thus limit my liability!

that wouldn't work. well, only as to breach of contract. it still leaves open a negligence action against the driver.

Wouldn't he still be vicariously covered for negligence as an an employee of the (albeit his own) company?

[Steve H]

freedman said:

Steve H said:

Ultimately it was the owner that stood the most obvious risk and so should bear the responsibility. If we can rely on MH's comments, the owner (or his staff) had been informed about the fault and potential for damage but told the driver to continue when they could have repaired or withdrawn the car. Put that together with the relative financial positions of a millionaire car owner and a jobbing racer/writer and I'd say the case was pretty bad form.

We've heard one party;s version of events

The court heard both and found in Pipers favour

I agree that it would be helpful to hear the other side or the reasons for the judgement going the way it did.

freedman said:

No idea why you would think any car owner should bear the resposibility for anothers error

Based on what we know so far, it seems like an error on the part of the owner to allow his car to be used when it has been reported to him by someone who would be considered very qualified that there was a fault that could cause damage. Maybe MH made an error in continuing to drive, with retrospect I've no doubt that he thinks so, but at the time it appears that he was told to continue and do his best to drive round the fault.

freedman said:

relative finiancial positions should have nothing to do with the right and wromg of the case

When I use phrases like "bad form" you can take it that I'm not discussing the legalities and in a case like this I do think it is relevant to the right and wrong in the wider sense.