# Tartan Issue



## Neicy (May 10, 2005)

Was wondering if a 1994 Tartan 3500 would fall into the current issues and speculations that are surrounding the Tartan name. Is there a cut-off year that would not be suspect to the hull problems?


----------



## 7Psych (Aug 28, 2007)

I think we need to be aware that the "issues" do not effect ALL Tartan boats produced. If so, then there would need to be a total recall of the yachts. However, apparently there have been "issues", but I would not generalize that to all boats being produced by Tartan. I have placed an order for a 3400 and expect delivery in late November.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

So far, I haven't read about any problem boats built prior to year 2000. Does anyone have any evidence that there were issues on boats in the 90's?


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> So far, I haven't read about any problem boats built prior to year 2000. Does anyone have any evidence that there were issues on boats in the 90's?


It was my understandings that the problem was related to changing to an epoxy laminate so older boats, pre 2000 at least, are not affected. All things considered this is good because I have an older Tartan.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

7Psych said:


> I think we need to be aware that the "issues" do not effect ALL Tartan boats produced. If so, then there would need to be a total recall of the yachts. However, apparently there have been "issues", but I would not generalize that to all boats being produced by Tartan. I have placed an order for a 3400 and expect delivery in late November.


If there were a "total recall" I think you can assume the company could be forced into bankruptcy. So if there is a universal problem with their hull construction they are in a tough spot as a company. To admit the problem, or institute a recall of all of their boats, could be death to the company. What would they do if they recalled them? Replace the hull?

According to the company's literature they "advanced the art of boat building by constructing all of our hulls from a composite of uni-directional E-glass reinforcement and Core-Cell linear polyurethane foam core bonded with epoxy resin" in the fall of 2002.

I think the Tartans are very appealing in a lot of ways. They do have some great features - ie: carbon fiber spars etc., and the boats seem to be very well made.

My problem with the company now would be their inability to defend the brand. For whatever reason they are not addressing customer service issues in a visible way (and it isn't just on Sailnet) The reason may go pack to paragraph 1, and that would concern me as a buyer. I have owned 2 Tartan sailboats in the past but wouldn't buy one now.

Tartan apparently has other problems that are aggravating them. >>EEOC sues Fairport yacht builder<<


----------



## stm (Jan 25, 2001)

*lawsuits*

The lawsuit refered to in the last post should not be much of a consideration. Although it is a problem for Tartan to deal with. 
many companies with alot of employees experience these types of 
lawsuits. Many are from disgruntled employees looking for a quick 
buck. The lawsuit would have no influence on how well their boats are
made.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Tartan34C said:


> It was my understandings that the problem was related to changing to an epoxy laminate so older boats, pre 2000 at least, are not affected. All things considered this is good because I have an older Tartan.
> All the best,
> Robert Gainer


Robert,

how do you know it was an epoxy laminate issue? Apart from Luckyjim trying to save us from buying tartan/C&C and claiming he has all the answers but refusing to tell us until his alleged saildrive suit against yanmar and novis is over or he is broke, everything on the internet about this one boat is nothing but hearsay. So one epoxy hull (not the 7 year old early model c&c121 with the known gelcoat problem) in say 500-600 hulls develops a structural crack, the company fixes it to the owners satisfaction, and the only banter out there is about overtight rigs, a lifting strap too far forward, layup issue, deck tie down strap too loose, amine blush, supervisor at lunch with new employee, no resin infused in that area (which is impossible because only the deck is resin infused), company going bankrupt, liners and bulkheads not fitting tight to new thinner laminant in old mold (you don't want them to fit tight because they develop hard spots) , it was Mr. Jacketts lack of experience and credibility, and my favorite they are covering up a major design defect to keep the company solvent. How ridiculous. Does anybody really think any employee or executive at the company would cover up an issue that could cause loss of life and result in said executive or employee on trial for the death. Looks like the 59 year old disgruntled employee who worked for novis for less than one year, was fired, and then filed a discrimination lawsuit started after the one tartan problem so we know it wasn't him. Good information there.

Has anyone thought that despite the defect or abuse the hull took, amazingly the epoxy hull was so strong that it kept the hull intact to get it towed to shore. Had it not been epoxy would it be at the bottom right now?

Epoxy and carbon are the future. It's not without it it's problems. Boeing just had another setback on the dreamliner. Boeing will get over it. Kind of amazing that Novis and Boeing are both working the same technology.

There are hundreds of satisfied novis customers and there is good value for the money. Being in a growth state is not without it's problems and it will all work out - they have acknowledged issues and started improving customer service. It isn't perfect and the dealers need to step up and support the customers.

There are two disgruntled people who purchased novis products. Both have foolishly continued to post negatively about Novis under different names and different sites during their alleged suits. They were banned from their own owners group because nobody cares or is concerned what they have to say and are quite tired of the nonsense and repetitive posts. Go do your lawsuit, learn your lesson.

If you are interested in a used product or even a new one, why come to a site where you really don't know who is posting what and why? Take the information with a grain of salt. Most people don't even use their real names. Why not call brokers, dealers, talk to owners, call Tartan and ask them. Ask Tim Jackett - he'll tell you straight up. That's right, the ceo and master designer, 35 or so years at the company, is available should you need him. Try that at Ford.

Go sailing, have fun. Buy epoxy - it's better. stop the slander and hearsay - it's not good for anyone.

Chilli.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Chilli,
The question I responded to was in what model years were the problems described an issue. The change to epoxy and the problems with the structure happened around the same time so I would say any year that predates the change to epoxy is a safe bet. I don’t know the laminate schedule or even what building technique was used so I am not saying anything about epoxy and the cause or effect in this situation. But I am putting a date to the problem.

The rest of your post is just an emotional response which adds fuel to the fire without adding any new information or facts. And of course that’s fine and one of the reasons people post to a forum is that they have something to say and can only say it within the limits of their own experience and knowledge. And by the way just because a person reports a problem publicly don’t assume that only one person has the problem.

You also caution us about the lack of background available to us as far as who is who on this forum. You point out some people don’t have a real name or identity associated with their online persona. You for example just joined and have made two posts. You have no name or background information available on your profile. I on the other hand use my real name and clearly state that I am in the marine business and have been for over thirty years. I am a practicing small craft designer employed to design and build small boats and teach boatbuilding and maritime history. Who are you? What is your background? What is your information or contribution worth? I am not asking in a negative way but just trying to see how you fit into things because with only two posts it’s hard to gauge your skill level or background.

You end by saying,
“Go sailing, have fun. Buy epoxy - it's better. stop the slander and hearsay - it's not good for anyone.”

Thanks for the advice but I will buy what I decide is best for both my style of sailing and budget. Lots of materials are available ranging all the way from wood to metal to composites and each has its advantages and disadvantages. Epoxy is not the end of the line but it’s just another step in the evolution of design and construction and it’s not suitable for everyone and never will be. But your use of the words slander and hearsay concern me. I hope you aren’t implying that I have said or done something inappropriate or dishonest? I think I understand the definition of both words and unless you can point something out that I have forgotten writing I don’t think I have been guilty of either slander or using hearsay to support any position I have taken. My opinions are formed by what I see, hear and read and are supported when necessary by personal experience and quoting the relevant source material. And I try to be very careful and note the difference between my opinion and what I consider facts or common knowledge. This is your second post and it sounds to me like you are accusing me of something. I apologize if I misunderstand you but because you have only two posts so far I don’t see where you’re coming from yet.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## 121Guy (May 6, 2007)

Dear Chili,

I am the owner of C&C 121 # 28 Prelude.

You made some factually incorrect statements in your post below.

Hopefully this will help you.

My boat was manufactured (the hull and deck were joined and it left the factory as new) in January 2002. She is a 2002 model so she is not 7 years old as you state. As she is hull# 28 of a run reported to be 45 boats all told, she is not an "early" model as you state.

She also has many more serious issues than "gelcoat cracks" as you stated. You seem to have done some reading before you posted and perhaps you missed all the problems we have had and continue to have with the boat. Those have been clearly documented.

Our boat has had "more issues" than any other the company has produced, according to the current warranty manager there.

There are more than two owners in litigation with the company at this time. A search of the public records will let anyone know how many and what each lawsuit concerns.

Others have posted additional lawsuit information concerning the company and it's employees, suppliers, dealers and other related parties.

Yes, we are one of the owners who have had to sue the company. This was done only after the company refused warranty repairs, reneged on their written agreement to replace our boat using a trade in of the current one, refused to deal with Boat US Consumer Protection Group ( a third party mediation service available to it's 650,000 members) and finally, refused to answer our final demand letter. We did everything possible to avoid the lawsuit.

We wish the company, it's owners, employees, and other related parties all the best and hope for their continued success and prosperity.

What would you, or anyone else, have done differently?

John M. Vito

Robert,

how do you know it was an epoxy laminate issue? Apart from Luckyjim trying to save us from buying tartan/C&C and claiming he has all the answers but refusing to tell us until his alleged saildrive suit against yanmar and novis is over or he is broke, everything on the internet about this one boat is nothing but hearsay. So one epoxy hull (not the 7 year old early model c&c121 with the known gelcoat problem) in say 500-600 hulls develops a structural crack, the company fixes it to the owners satisfaction, and the only banter out there is about overtight rigs, a lifting strap too far forward, layup issue, deck tie down strap too loose, amine blush, supervisor at lunch with new employee, no resin infused in that area (which is impossible because only the deck is resin infused), company going bankrupt, liners and bulkheads not fitting tight to new thinner laminant in old mold (you don't want them to fit tight because they develop hard spots) , it was Mr. Jacketts lack of experience and credibility, and my favorite they are covering up a major design defect to keep the company solvent. How ridiculous. Does anybody really think any employee or executive at the company would cover up an issue that could cause loss of life and result in said executive or employee on trial for the death. Looks like the 59 year old disgruntled employee who worked for novis for less than one year, was fired, and then filed a discrimination lawsuit started after the one tartan problem so we know it wasn't him. Good information there.

Has anyone thought that despite the defect or abuse the hull took, amazingly the epoxy hull was so strong that it kept the hull intact to get it towed to shore. Had it not been epoxy would it be at the bottom right now?

Epoxy and carbon are the future. It's not without it it's problems. Boeing just had another setback on the dreamliner. Boeing will get over it. Kind of amazing that Novis and Boeing are both working the same technology.

There are hundreds of satisfied novis customers and there is good value for the money. Being in a growth state is not without it's problems and it will all work out - they have acknowledged issues and started improving customer service. It isn't perfect and the dealers need to step up and support the customers.

There are two disgruntled people who purchased novis products. Both have foolishly continued to post negatively about Novis under different names and different sites during their alleged suits. They were banned from their own owners group because nobody cares or is concerned what they have to say and are quite tired of the nonsense and repetitive posts. Go do your lawsuit, learn your lesson.

If you are interested in a used product or even a new one, why come to a site where you really don't know who is posting what and why? Take the information with a grain of salt. Most people don't even use their real names. Why not call brokers, dealers, talk to owners, call Tartan and ask them. Ask Tim Jackett - he'll tell you straight up. That's right, the ceo and master designer, 35 or so years at the company, is available should you need him. Try that at Ford.

Go sailing, have fun. Buy epoxy - it's better. stop the slander and hearsay - it's not good for anyone.

Chilli.[/QUOTE]


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

Now we're just wasting cyber space with rewritten text...do a search for Christ sakes! Or you can PM Camaraderie, he seems to be the gatekeeper of all Tartan/C&C Issues


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Huh...gatekeeper???
You must have me confuzed with Zuul...I am Vinz Clortho (the Keymaster).
_During the rectification of the Vuldronaii the Traveller came as a large, moving Torb. Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants they chose a new form for him--that of a giant Sloar. Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day, I can tell you._










After the rectification appropriate comments may be left on the http://www.sailnet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=209160#post209160 thread
All praise be to Zuul the all-powerful Slor of Tithian.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

John,

I'm too lazy to look up who is doing what over what issues legally - so give us an update on owners vs. novis. Don't care about the employee or breaking the yanmar deal with mack or whatever mack wants. Yanmar good engine, but watch out for those SD's.

I rounded your boat age up from 6 3/4 to 7 years (Jan. beginning season 7) and early meant early in the epoxy run. I think the post was correct. Not surprised Johnson blew you off.

I've read about your issues. Awful that you have the record at Novis, but I'm concerned you could lose the house on this one. Kinda serious about that - ask your attorney's how many years this could take and whether the 5 years in court and 50k are worth it - and if you lose you could pay 100k with the other teams legal costs + you've ignored all the warnings about damaging the brand with inappropriate posts and that's the one that's really going to bite you.

So you decided to file over:

deck bumps which are in the mold at C&C, a rudder bearing that needs honing (it's probably PE and that is known to swell over time), and the crazing of the gelcoat which is not through the laminant as a crack. Don't see the breach in warrantee. Deflection in structures is normal within the designers tolerance.

From Tim Jackett visit a few weeks ago: "During my visit yesterday, I thoroughly inspected the inside laminate surfaces, bulkhead and stringer glass tabbing, glued bulkhead joints to the deck and interior liner looking for some
indication that the boat was in any way showing signs of structural
damage. None were found. All bulkhead attachments were sound and
tight, risers and stringers were well bonded, not a single glass tab
showed evidence of stress and the inside laminate showed no evidence
of working or stress. Similarly, the interior hull liner showed no
signs of stress or damage."

Why not take the buyback offer from C&C. Why not just hone the bearing and do the mack next year or sell it for what you paid for it? It held it's value. If someone hasn't told you this, drop the case and run - you have about a less than 5% chance of winning and if you do win good luck collecting. Did your attorney tell you about that? That is another hint.

Would be nice if they threw you a few bucks for the gelcoat crazing but whatever you did and have now done - that's probably not going to happen.

Just wondering when you posted the "billy billy billy" post, did you figure how much that was going to cost you in the countersuit when you hit the enter button? This thing could expand and ruin you. It's not like you wrote a check for the boat - your pockets are not that deep. In the end John, it's just a ) boat and it was supposed to be fun.

Chilli.



121Guy said:


> Dear Chili,
> 
> I am the owner of C&C 121 # 28 Prelude.
> 
> ...


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Robert,

As a naval architect could you identify the problems with the structure? A. Design Problem B. Manufacturing Problem C. Material Problem. D. Improper overloading beyond design limits.

My opinion: nobody knows what happened to the one boat - nothing is published. How can we then say problems with the structure? For example, did they try and move the boat with full tanks, max backstay, loose deck tie down turnbuckle, and put the strap too far forward of the depth sounder? Strap should be aft of the instruments. Did it slip off it's keel on the shipping truck? Poor jackstand placement?

I believe 2005 was the model year of the split so three years of epoxy out there and ok prior to this? Ocean races etc. As much as LuckyJim would like you to believe that all epoxy hulls are defective, I don't see a correlation to the year of the switch at Novis with one known and verified event.

John has a list of all the suits facing Novis, and he has been asked to post it, so hopefully that will shed a little more info for us to digest. I have only heard of two suits, my comment to John above oh his that he's in for a long rotten expensive ride (hopefully he can get out while he can) and LuckJim's saildrive electrolysis . He and about 50 other people lost Yanmar SD's for a variety of reasons. LuckyJim's hull is ok. Waiting on LuckJim to tell us if he was using a galvanic isolator and whether it was working.

And if anyone is out there without a galvanic isolator - get one.

Chilli



Tartan34C said:


> Chilli,
> The question I responded to was in what model years were the problems described an issue. The change to epoxy and the problems with the structure happened around the same time so I would say any year that predates the change to epoxy is a safe bet. I don't know the laminate schedule or even what building technique was used so I am not saying anything about epoxy and the cause or effect in this situation. But I am putting a date to the problem.
> 
> The rest of your post is just an emotional response which adds fuel to the fire without adding any new information or facts. And of course that's fine and one of the reasons people post to a forum is that they have something to say and can only say it within the limits of their own experience and knowledge. And by the way just because a person reports a problem publicly don't assume that only one person has the problem.
> ...


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Chilli starts out by saying,
“As a naval architect could you identify the problems with the structure? A. Design Problem B. Manufacturing Problem C. Material Problem. D. Improper overloading beyond design limits.”

First, I am a small craft designer which is a very different discipline then Naval Architecture or Marine Engineering. A Naval Architect is presumed qualified to design both large and small craft while a small craft designer is limited in practice to vessels less then 200 feet. My work these days is limited to wood design and construction with special emphases on recreations of small boats that were used between 1700 and 1900. Before joining the Hudson Fisheries Trust I did design glass boats but nothing high tech and in fact I know less about the design and manufacture of a modern Tartan then most Tartan owners. In any case to answer your point A: I don’t have a copy of the design and its unlikely I will get a copy. Point B: I don’t know how the boat is built and have no training or experience in modern composites. Point C: see point B. Point D: I don’t know what the design limits were and if I did have access to that information I don’t know what the loading conditions were. It looks like you have asked a lot of meaningless questions.

Chilli then goes on to say,
“My opinion: nobody knows what happened to the one boat - nothing is published.”

A lot has been published on both sides of the debate and it’s up to you to read it all and decide for yourself. But more importunely your opinion is worthless to me because you have not given anybody a clue as to your background and skill set. You just jumped in with both feet in support of Tartan and for all I know you are working for Tartan. To have any meaningful discussion I want to know who I am talking to. And until some background information is forthcoming this will be our last exchange.

As to the rest of your post, it once again is just a rehash with no new information or insight into the problem and doesn’t require any response from me.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

> ...but I'm concerned you could lose the house on this one. Kinda serious about that - ask your attorney's how many years this could take and whether the 5 years in court and 50k are worth it - and if you lose you could pay 100k with the other teams legal costs + you've ignored all the warnings about damaging the brand with inappropriate posts and that's the one that's really going to bite you.


Tim, is that you? (just kidding) No one knows who you are or your agenda, but you are wasting your time trying to threaten the people who have claims. I think Novis is the one with legal problems on their hands.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Chilli,
What is your interest in all this? Odd that you should expend so much life force over an issue that you have no stake in.......


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Chilli - you're sounding like a shill...

Company is in trouble. If they weren't, they would never have allowed things to get to this point.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

I received a PM from John Vito the other day that starts out with,

"I'm John Vito at [email protected] we are the 121 owners with the problems. Raelly appreciate your ballanced view on these issues and we do not and will not seek to mire you in our legal situation.

That said, I'd like to ask for a favor.

I would understand perfectly if you said no but hope you will consider it as I think it would be healthy for the discussion.

Here it is. With your background, you are an viewed as an impartial third party smart guy."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Snip out the request itself to save space not to hide the nature of the request which doesn't matter in this case. I object to the way he asked and not so much to the underlying question. In fact if he had only asked the question without the "whisper" and back room approach I might have been tempted to comment on both the question and Tartan's overall response to this problem.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

And he ends by saying,

"A view on this from you on one of the forums might be useful to all."

My first thought was to send this to a moderator but then it occurred to me that it didn't violate the terms of service to talk back channel and discuss posting a new topic or discussing strategy to affect a goal in the public conversation. It might violate my idea of what constitutes good practice and ethics but that's just my feelings on the matter. So after thinking about this for a few days I decided that in the interest of letting everybody know what's going on in the background I should make my response to this PM in public. For the most part I think people are smart enough to put two and two together if you let them know the facts.

Mr. Vito,
First I want to thank you for considering me both impartial and a "smart guy". The way I am going to continue being impartial and maintain the illusion of being a smart guy is to avoid back room deals and making comments when I don't have enough information or knowledge to make even a try at an intelligent contribution. But more then that I think what you consider "useful to all" is in fact a very transparent try to tip the balance in your favor at the expense of honesty and an open and transparent process and in the final analyses is useful only to you. I have been on the fence during this debate but now I have a better understanding as to why Tartan might have started dragging their feet. If you tried to do business with me using an underhanded technique such as this end run I would tell you to pack up and get out of my shop no matter what it cost me in lost business.

I call them as I see them and don't ask me to start, change or contributive to a thread with a thought of improving your position or stirring the pot to see what comes to light that might be useful to you. I think that's best done during the discovery phase of your action by your attorneys. I am not in bed with you and after your recent PM I don't want my name associated in any way with you or your problems.
Robert Gainer


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

heavy sigh.
I've got no dog in this hunt.

Ater having been both a plaintiff and a defendant, as well as an "expert" witness for both sides of various cases, let me offer this tidbit.

No good will ever come of this suit. 

The defendants have legal firms on retainer that defend them. 
The defendants insurance companies have legal firms that defend them. 

This will boil down to a "my expert more believeable than your expert" case, IF it ever hits the inside of a courtroom. 
You are talking YEARS. (reference the class action lawsuit regarding Uniflite, and the settlement that BARRED PARTICIPANTS FROM SPEAKING ABOUT THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT)

You are opening yourself up to FAR more troubles if you continue to voice your, and your "experts" opinions without viable substantiation.

If your attorney hasn't said "shut up, sit down and let me work my magic," I'd fire the stupid putz and find me one that did. Unless of course he plans on defending you after all of this comes to a big pile of nothing and novis, tartan, whomever decides to go after you, your kids, your dog, your house, your newspaper subscription assets. (unless you own nothing. 

Scenario 1
Side A) 
All of my experts say this boat is a POS. This has been posted on no less than 375 internet boards saying so... these posts have been read or responded to by no less than 175,000 people. There, take that....

Side B) Our experts say this boat is not a POS, and it's decided in our favor... So, in light of all of the uninformed personal decisions that have been made to post this "information", our company has been harmed, we must be made whole. 

Scenario 2)
Side A) 
All of my experts say this boat is a POS. Its been decided that this boat is a POS, I want to be made whole...

Side B) Appeal. Another 5 years. 
Fast forward 5 years...
Ok, heres a check for the boat and for your lawyers fees, you want it, heres the gag order... Oops, geez, heres all these old threads damaging our reputation. This isn't a class action, this is ONE boat, one plaintiff, one owner. Hmm, Judge what do we do about that? 

Like I said, I don't give a rats patootie how this shakes out, but if you want cash in your pocket, if it were me, I'd shut the hell up until the gavel drops for the last time.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

cardiacpaul said:


> If your attorney hasn't said "shut up, sit down and let me work my magic," I'd fire the stupid putz and find me one that did. Unless of course he plans on defending you after all of this comes to a big pile of nothing and novis, tartan, whomever decides to go after you, your kids, your dog, your house, your newspaper subscription assets. (unless you own nothing.


I wouldn't worry about all of that stuff...If it were me and I had a problem that I felt had not been resolved, I would just make sure that anything I say is factual and verifiable. The harm to the company is not coming from what the complaints of these owners are but from the fact that the company seems not to respond to the issues.

You may want to ask an attorney, but I don't think people with issues with companies should be silenced by a fear of the legal system. Just be honest in your dealings. If you are not "malicious" and what you say is true, you will not suffer.

I have not heard any of what I think of as defamation - intentional or reckless public false statement that injures another's reputation.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> You may want to ask an attorney, but I don't think people with issues with companies should be silenced by a fear of the legal system. Just be honest in your dealings. If you are not "malicious" and what you say is true, you will not suffer.


 I agree. If more people stood up and did what's right things would be a lot better in the marketplace.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

_The harm to the company is not coming from what the complaints of these owners are but from the fact that the company *seems* not to respond to the issues._

We are getting one side of this story, we do not know what "the company" has, or has not done, will or will not do, has or has not said... why is that?
Because there is pending litigation!!!!!!!!

We do know what the plaintiff has said the defendant has done, but other than that, we really know diddly squat.

it has absolutely nothing to do with malicious, true, or untrue.

It has to do with pending litigation. period. Whats "right" doesn't enter into the equasion all that much either. 
the bottom line is, if this thing turns even half way sour for the owners of the boat, and I (as the owners of the company) have even "perceived" damages, I wouldn't hesitate for a new york minute to run them thru the grinder. Knowing full well that it would probably "damage" whatever "reputation" the company has left wouldn't bother an attorney in the least. At that point, it DOES become personal for a privately held company.

What you have to remember, is all of these claims are in a legal sense "pending" at best, unproven at worst.

I'm NOT saying the guy doesn't have a claim, I don't know, and I don't really care.

No one should be silenced by the legal system, I'm saying try your best not to shoot off your own foot in the process.


----------

