"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/KOLB-...QQcmdZViewItem

or http://makeashorterlink.com/?B6E5245BC

"I would like to have a waiver sighed by the buyer,you are buying this
as a NON-FLYING AIRCRAFT(you will have to install the prop, to make it
flyable) Just for liability."

Would a statement like the above or a waiver stand up in a court of law
to keep the seller from losing in court? ...or would this be
considered a way to skirt the law?


I ain't no lawyer, but if I were sitting on a Jury, it wouldn't be hard to
convince me that the intent was to sell a flying airplane, not a static
display...

Read the ad: "Cruises about 80 mph. This plane is a rocket off the water, I
took first last year in a short takeoff contest, I was off the water in 3.5
sec."
"One float has a very slight bow in the top rail, it does not affect its
performance, or airworthyness. "

He's advertising how well it flys. He says it's airworthy.

And from his E-Bay store "I am acertified ROTAX service center, and A&P, I
buy and sell Rotax parts new and used. I specialize in good used ROTAX 2
cycle engines of all kinds for ULTRALIGHT and EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. I also
buy and sell ULTRALIGHT and EXPERIMENT AIRCRAFT and sell parts for the same,
as well as FLOATS."
From a past sale: "I will Fly, Hover, Sled, or whatever behind any engine I
sell and I sell a lot of them"

Now, he says: "I would like to have a waiver sighed by the buyer,you are
buying this as a NON-FLYING AIRCRAFT(you will have to install the prop, to
make it flyable) Just for liability."

Now, why is he so concerned about liabiity on THIS aircraft? Is there some
defect that he is trying to cover up? Probably not, but I bet some fast
talking lawyer would try to convince a jury of that.

Of course, if I were on a jury, I personally wouldn't assume that just
because there was an accident (assuming that at some time there is an
accident and things end up in court) that it's somehow the original builders
fault for building an airplane that could be crashed. But that's me.

True story: I work in an office building on the ring road around the
parking lot for a large mall (one of several office buildings . A lot of
people, for whatever reason, like to park in the mall's lot and walk across
the street. The mall parking never fills, no big deal. Right? Monday morning
mail was sent to everyone in the building stating that effective a couple
days before, anyone parking in the mall lot would be ticketed and possibly
have the vehicle towed. Why? As it turns out, someone in another building
had parked in the mall lot, and got hit by a car as they crossed the street
to their office building and sued the mall for damages... Now, I don't know
the details, but personally, if you are careless enough to get hit by a car,
the fault lies with you and/or the person driving. Not a stupid shopping
mall...

The point being, there is no telling what someone will sue for, eh?

But, the real question is, why is our favorite monk shilling for this guy?
(Just kidding. Really,)


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.