If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
I had a tentative deal to sell a set of drawings for a Dyke
Delta to anther gentleman. These drawings were purchased by my father from John Dyke shortly before my father suddenly died. My father got no further than the purchase of the drawings, he never had time to even clean out a space in his shop to begin work. I now have the drawings and considered them to be something that I could honestly sell because they had never been used. They were only taken out of the mailing tube one time. The prospective buyer was informed by Mr. Dyke that there would be no builder support because the airplane had not been started. If there was an unfinished project being sold, Mr Dyke would help the new buyer finish it. But he has washed his hands of this set of drawings because when my father died before he could start, he rendering the drawings and the rights to build from them void. From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings. Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this notion applied as a legal precedent in the past? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
"me" wrote in message news:Bslaf.1443$5R2.868@trnddc08... I had a tentative deal to sell a set of drawings for a Dyke Delta to anther gentleman. The prospective buyer was informed by Mr. Dyke that there would be no builder support because the airplane had not been started. I think if I were you I would contact Dyke myself and see what he had to say. Sometimes things get mixed up going through a middle man. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
"me" wrote From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings. Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this notion applied as a legal precedent in the past? Mr. Dyke has always had questionable business practices, IMHO. Too bad. It is a neat plane. I would advise the prospective buyer to go ahead with the project. There are others out there that have built the plans that would help, I am sure. -- Jim in NC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the
part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings. Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this notion applied as a legal precedent in the past? Who is being greedy here? What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale? Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from Mr Dyke. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
In article ,
john smith wrote: From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings. Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this notion applied as a legal precedent in the past? Who is being greedy here? What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale? Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from Mr Dyke. What is it, in your mind, that differentiates a set of airplane plans from anything else in the world that might be sold second-hand? What should the inheritor of a set of plans he has no intention of using do with them? Throw them away? Return them to Mr. Dyke so that he can sell them twice? Warranties on new merchandise often come with the "original purchaser" limitation. If Mr. Dyke wants to offer technical support only to the original purchaser, he is within his legal rights to do so. I still maintain that he is being small by doing so. Who cares whether the plans change hands 100 times? He sells one set of plans, he eventually offers one real builder technical support. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
Smitty Two wrote: In article , john smith wrote: From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings. Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this notion applied as a legal precedent in the past? Who is being greedy here? What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale? Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from Mr Dyke. What is it, in your mind, that differentiates a set of airplane plans from anything else in the world that might be sold second-hand? What should the inheritor of a set of plans he has no intention of using do with them? Throw them away? Return them to Mr. Dyke so that he can sell them twice? Warranties on new merchandise often come with the "original purchaser" limitation. If Mr. Dyke wants to offer technical support only to the original purchaser, he is within his legal rights to do so. I still maintain that he is being small by doing so. Who cares whether the plans change hands 100 times? He sells one set of plans, he eventually offers one real builder technical support. Sorry, but I would have to disagree with you on this. If, as the purchaser of the plans you want the technical support of the designer, you should purchase those plans from the designer and pay the price for that support. The only reason for purchasing them otherwise is to try and essentially get something for nothing. Mr. Dyke doesn't owe you, the second, third, or whatever down the line anything and potientially would have to answer the same questions over and over again not to mention having to try and keep up with who now rightfully owns the plans. As the inheritor of a set of plans, you can keep them, throw them away or sell them but you have not right to expect that whatever action you take should imply any liability on a third party, in this case Mr. Dyke. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
"BobR" wrote in message oups.com... As the inheritor of a set of plans, you can keep them, throw them away or sell them but you have not right to expect that whatever action you take should imply any liability on a third party, in this case Mr. Dyke. I'm not saying anybody involved is right or wrong and I've never seen Mr. Dyke's purchase agreement BUT... The original purchaser bought the plans and the right to build one aircraft. Without the transfer of that right the plans are just artwork and would require no technical support. It is the right to build the aircraft that requires the support. Since the aircraft was never built that right hasn't been used and has been inherited by the OP. So if part of what was paid for when the license was granted was tech support that tech support really should transfer to the new owner. (A fair transfer fee could be charged.) Of course, none of this matters if the sales agreement says different. And since any cost of litigating the matter would cost more than a fresh set of plans it is all just a matter of us babbling on. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
In article .com,
"BobR" wrote: Mr. Dyke ... potentially would have to answer the same questions over and over again not to mention having to try and keep up with who now rightfully owns the plans. Actually, the OP specifically stated that Mr. Dyke specifically stated that *had the airplane construction been started,* he would offer tech support to the new owner, but since construction had *not* been started, he wouldn't. This policy seems exactly contrary to your logic here, FMPOV. The plans and the technical support that ostensibly accompanies them have both been paid for, and neither have been used. Ann Landers might have a different view, as you obviously do too, but my morality still says they ought to be transferable to another party. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyke
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:38:13 GMT, john smith wrote:
From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings. Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this notion applied as a legal precedent in the past? Who is being greedy here? I guess I see this differently than most others. I don't see any one being greedy...yet. What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale? The plans should be good for one airplane. If one is built of started they go with the plane. If none has been started they should be good for one. That seems simple to me. Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from The thing missed by everyone so far is" "What does the contract say"? There should be a set of terms with the plans.The terms should come with the plans, not published some where else. If they say to the original purchaser only that's quite plain, it also means they wouldn't transfer, unless specific language is there to allow it. HOWEVER If there is no language that says they are for the original purchaser only then as long as no airplane has been built of they are not part of a partial, under construction they should still be good. However if they go with a project, all you need is to have gotten things ready to start building for them to be part of a project. But it'd have to be something that would go with the planes, not just my planning. Construction materials, tools, any thing associated with building the plane. I started my G-III by purposely building a shop in which to build the plane. Were it not for the G-III I'd not have the shop which is a great place to work on all kinds of projects. Of course the G-III is not plans built. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Mr Dyke. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |