BD-5 historical questions

Juan Jimenez wrote:
Not nearly as black and white as you think, particularly when you consider
that those people who placed deposits received substantially what they
ordered (the kits). The BD-5D deposits are another story, I don't know what
happened to those. Nevertheless, the implication is that Jim Bede stole the
escrows. He did not. He came out of the bankruptcy damn near penniless. The
company may not have been managed as well as it should have, but there is
zero evidence anyone's money was stolen. It's that simple.

Escrows are VERY, VERY, VERY black and white!

It is possible that the terms of the escrow didn't adequately protect
the consumer, but escrows are very black and white. This is one area
of law that is pretty damn straightforward.

The fact that Bede came out of bankruptcy "damn near penniless" is
immaterial in evaluating whether customers were treated fairly.

When companies go out of business, people suffer. It is unfortunate
that most companies continue to receive merchandise from vendors and
money from customers long after the decision to close the doors is
made.

The fact that there is "zero evidence anyone's money was stolen" means
little when there is zero evidence that Bede was honest, either.
Normally, there is presumption of innocence, but when customers do not
receive goods they payed for, the needle starts to swing in the other
direction.

wrote:
Juan Jimenez wrote:

Not nearly as black and white as you think, particularly when you consider
that those people who placed deposits received substantially what they
ordered (the kits). The BD-5D deposits are another story, I don't know what
happened to those. Nevertheless, the implication is that Jim Bede stole the
escrows. He did not. He came out of the bankruptcy damn near penniless. The
company may not have been managed as well as it should have, but there is
zero evidence anyone's money was stolen. It's that simple.


Escrows are VERY, VERY, VERY black and white!

Oh, please, nothing to do with the law, banks, brokerage houses, etc.,
is ever black and white. How naive.


Matt

------------snip------------
Escrows are VERY, VERY, VERY black and white!

------------snip------------

I'm not so sure of that--especially 30 plus years ago.

There may well have been a difference between escrow
held by a third party (broker) and escrow held directly
by a vendor. Add the fact of many partial deliveries to
the equation and you just get more questions.

Add to all of that, the engine development issues cited
in the Contact! article mentioned earlier in this thread
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/T.../contact1.html
(thanks to Bob Kuykendall for posting) and you have
the recipe for pretty much what we remember.

It's really a shame--it was such a neat little airplane!

Remember also, as an example, the debacle of deposits
on new real estate (especially condominiums) just a few
years later ...

Peter

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:04:04 -0500, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

------------snip------------
Escrows are VERY, VERY, VERY black and white!

------------snip------------

I'm not so sure of that--especially 30 plus years ago.

Same thing happened on the BD-12 less than ten years ago... purchasers' money
put into escrow, but they never got a kit or their money back.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:04:04 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:

------------snip------------
Escrows are VERY, VERY, VERY black and white!

------------snip------------

I'm not so sure of that--especially 30 plus years ago.

Same thing happened on the BD-12 less than ten years ago... purchasers'
money
put into escrow, but they never got a kit or their money back.

Ron Wanttaja

You're right, of course.

In my moment of recalling my enfatuation with the BD-5, I forgot about the
BD-10, BD-12, and a couple of others that never "made it".

Nearly all Bede's designs have been intriguing in some way, and even the
"successfull" ones (such as the BD-2 and BD-4) have had reputations a little
like a Bengal tiger as a pet...

Peter

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


Same thing happened on the BD-12 less than ten years ago... purchasers' money
put into escrow, but they never got a kit or their money back.

Either the terms of the escrow allowed the funds to be removed from
escrow at a stage that offered little protection to the customer or
something else was horribly wrong and could have been avoided for about
100 bucks in attorney's fees.

"Peter Dohm" wrote

There may well have been a difference between escrow
held by a third party (broker) and escrow held directly
by a vendor.

If it is not held by a third (bonded) party, then it is not escrow. That
fact (or definition) has not changed in the last 100 years.

The person holding the money may call it escrow, but if there is not an
impartial third party in direct control of the money, such as an accountant
or lawyer, your money is not safe from a grab. Bede has been proof of that.
--
Jim in NC