Sam_68 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:35 pm
Filtertron wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:21 pm
I can buy
a car which is a write-off in the legal sense, or 'wreck' if you will. It might be as simple as replacing a radiator strut; fit a new quarter panel skin, and put a new engine in it to put it back on the road. Once the engineering has been signed off on the repairs, I can then register the car. 90% of the car is original, but it is no longer a wreck. It ceased being a wreck when I pulled it down to repair it. An engine is a replaceable component, which Campbell himself was no stranger to. It's not a hard concept to understand.
No, it's not a hard concept to understand.
But there's one word in what you've said that you seem to be failing to fully grasp the significance of yourself, however, so I've highlighted it for you.
Semantics. It wouldn't make any difference if I bought it, or was given it. That wasn't my point. The point is that I have acquired the car. Whether by hook or crook is completely irrelevent. I was discussing the fact that the wreck no longer exists.
Sam_68 wrote:Certainly, if BBP Ltd. had purchased the wreck from the Ruskin, there would be no question that they owned it.
They haven't, so equally there is no question that it remains the property of the Ruskin, in its entirety, and in its restored state.
Legally, the Ruskin owns the wreck. However, as I have pointed out previously the wreck no longer exists
, unless you count the corroded engine, and whatever remains on the lake bed at Coniston. As you and I are not privy to the full agreement between both parties, it is fair to say that the BBP retain legal ownership of all parts fitted to K7 which they have manufactured or fitted. I cannot imagine for a second that there wouldn't have been a caveat in the contract which didn't protect the interests of the BBP. Go back and think about the money that the BBP have put into K7. Would you do all of that without protecting your interests legally
if things did go south? Of course you would, and I am sure the BBP have.
Sam_68 wrote:To extend your analogy, the repair work to K7, whilst substantial, is basically the same as taking a bumped car into a garage and replacing the bent panels. You will then owe the garage for whatever work it was pre-agreed you would pay them for, but you still clearly own the repaired article. And if the garage goes ahead and fixes a bunch of stuff that you never asked them to touch, or never agreed to pay for, then you have every right to tell them to do one when they present you with an invoice.
In a perfect world maybe
. The hole in your argument is that costs do pop up with unforeseen problems relating to repair work. Your mechanic might notice you need a new head gasket, while your car is in for other repairs. I would surmise that if this wasn't repaired, you'd be complaining to your mechanic about why they didn't fix it while they had your car in the shop. Given the repair work to K7 was an unknown quantity, your argument doesn't apply. All of the restoration work was done with the Ruskin's knowledge. At no time that I am aware of did they question or object to making K7 operational again. If they wanted it to be a static exhibit, they would have said so from the outset.
Sam_68 wrote:As I understand it, it was always implied that K7 was being restored on behalf of the Ruskin, with the cost being born by donations and public subscription. Indeed, until recently, this intention was clearly stated on BBP's website. If a signed contract exists somewhere that states the Ruskin will pick up any costs not covered by donations, then they will be obliged to honour it, of course.
So you don't know definitively if that is the case or not. You're simply throwing assumptions about, based on the few sketchy details which have made their way into the public domain? I think this is the crux of the argument: none of us on the outside really know what agreements/contracts are in place between the Ruskin and BBP. We're not privy to the full documents, such as the often cited "2006 agreement". Do you know every single nuance and clause? I certainly don't, and I am not about to presume that I do either. How can you say with certainty that the BBP don't retain ownership of the components to make K7 complete again, and an operational vehicle at that?
Sam_68 wrote:In the absence of such a contract, I struggle to see how BBP Ltd. can lay any claim whatsoever to ownership of the boat. Anything else would be tantamount to my garage claiming that they now own my car just because they fixed it for me...
If you don't pay for the parts and labour, then your mechanic has every right to call a debt collector, and impound your car until it is paid for. This isn't the case here at all.
It is on the public record that Coniston couldn't get it together for K7's homecoming this year, as the committee in Coniston steering the event was dissolved for reasons unknown to me (perhaps the Ruskin's pending legal action? Who knows). The Ruskin were also invited to partner with the BBP for July's trials at Bute, which would have been a terrific opportunity for them. Instead, they go silent and start legal proceedings against the BBP, which isn't the right thing to do - in fact, I think this is extremely poor form on their behalf. This whole debacle could quite easily be settled if they would simply start communicating with the BBP.