And you are??????????????????????????????????????????????? ????Originally Posted by The facts
Remember to always log on before heading offshore.
Good Evening,
While I enjoyed the replies on this post, can you imagine what our USA readers are thinking?
This started off as Bad, then became Interesting, so we Celebrate with jokes!
I am on your side, but they must be thinking "What the?"
Any comment, Di?
A Proud Member of
"The Rebel Alliance"
The fact is he joined AF to make comment on this post "ONLY"
Garry
Retired Honda Master Tech
I am guessing "the facts" is some way connected to the shipping company. After offering a counter argument to the post by Leisure Freight then proceeded to start offering opinions on the place of business and asserting they are trying to deceive them all without once revealing his/her identity. At least Leisure Freight put a name to their post. What ever we all think about this saga the fact is that one of the parties clearly stated who they were and the other hasn't.
Remember to always log on before heading offshore.
Gary the point remains none the less...just WHO is telling the truth here.....even Leisure Freight have screwed up their OWN admissions here by basically calling the OP a liar.
THEY said Ric only paid a 10% deposit...and that THAT deposit was being returned to him as we speak...NO such confirmation either from Leisure OR Ric.
Ric claims ......PAID IN FULL.....and I believe THAT much at least.
NOW....."the facts" drops in and reports on the actually allegations & ramifications that Leisure face.
THIS IS NOT THE POINT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The point IS....RIC is out of pocket $10,000.....with NO-ONE OWNING UP !!!!!!!
Screw "the facts" and its' agenda.....WHEN WILL RIC Be compensated.....ONE WAY...OR ANOTHER ??????????????
Leisure are VERY demur in EVERYTHING they do as a so-called business, so it would seem.
and THAT....is the point here.
This, of course is OMO, BUT, a very STRONG one, UNTIL irrefutable evidence is forthcoming....ONE way...or the other !
Ray.
Last edited by solemandownunder; 18-06-2013 at 07:27 PM. Reason: More info
Alright.............so obviously using pictorial diagrams to more emphasize ones point to a higher degree is becoming a thorn in someone's side so words will have to do from this point forward.
I would have really liked to use a Sherlock Holmes picture here but we'll see how this pans out before I go asking for a reprieve.
From my reasoning, that is only based on what has been said here is that the shipping line mentioned in The Facts first post isn't the person behind all of this. Spliethoff Transport are Netherlands largest shipowners, a multi-billion outfit that would hardly be interested in burying a small Australian company on an internet forum. The courts have obviously awarded them damages if The Fact's first post is correct giving them no reason to use petty tactics this early on in the piece.
The statutory demand mentioned in his last post to my reasoning has been issued by Spliethoff Transport but The Facts is not affiliated with this company.
1. The Facts is an Ausfish member's alter ego. Someone here that is owed money or service from NBD/LFI but is foolish enough to try and bury them on a personal level after Spliethoff issued NBD/LFi with a statutory demand. Not a very smart move given the fact that it's less than a month until NBD/LFI have to cough up or dispute the statutory demand in court.The Facts seems to obviously be in to boating enough to use NBD/LFI services to import a boat or trailer but not enough to post comments on any other part of this forum? A bit strange don't you think? My guess is that this alter ego is meant to be his voice on this thread and this thread only.
2. It's a direct competitor to NBD/LFI. An Australian company that has a vested interest in turning people away from their competitor. Someone in the industry that has good enough relationships with other importers, carriers and shipping agent to find out the inside gossip on a case in progress. One of those 'don't tell anyone, but...................' kind of scenarios. Even if this is the case my money is still on them being an existing Ausfish member. Too convenient that they just suddenly popped up to join in on this thread, they must have know that NBD/LFI are advertisers here on Ausfish and a very convenient way to bury them in front of a very large prospective client base.
An existing Ausfish member?
An Australian boat builder?
An Australian company that imports boats too that are Ausfish members from Portsea in Victoria?
Who knows..........just PM me with the truth buddy, your secret is safe with me
I originally posted up here for information because for over a month, i was unable to contact leisure freight, after phones off the hook, messages left and emails sent.
I eventually found another number which became reliable in contacting them, but the end result is still no trailer. Was promised 6 week turnaround when i handed over my money.
Yes i did pay (actually a little over 12k not 10 i just rounded it down) for the trailer back on the 7th of feb.
I know who you are all talkig about with regards to 10% deposits and other people with refunds. - they have contacted me and shall remain private unless they wish to speak up.
I have a reciept showing i have paid in full.
I have all correspondance via emails.
I have phone records showing over 100 calls to leisure freight.
If i could show incoming calls, i could show you that in 5 months i have recieved 1 phone call from leisure freight.
Ric
I'll hand it to ya buddy...............you're a damn sight more patient than I am!!!!
Best of luck mate.
Hi Ric
As you know we have spoken several times. Yes you did pay for your trailer - the other dual axle cat trailer owner paid only a 10% deposit and yes I did return this customer's deposit when I figured out whom was whom.
Yes I had 2 dual axle trailers - as you know - not a tri axle which is what you ordered - but in Magic Tilt's wisdom they decided your trailer was too small to be a tri axle and built it as a dual axle but didn't tell me. Remembering your trailer was a custom build from drawings. Go figure? First time it has ever happened that they have over-ruled an order from us and changed the spec - but they were working from your drawings so I guess they thought they were building you a better trailer. They build for ove 10,000 models and have been around for 30 years - but hey - what do they know right? This having happened didn't help the confusion as you also know.
Despite this I asked Magic Tilt to upgrade it to a tri axle as you also know.
I am a bit over the word "bankrupt" in the heading of this post. I have explained the situation. I am sure the Ausfish members are over it and to be honest I consider you using this word when you know it isn't the case is pretty much defamation. Now - have I complained and run you down? No I have copped it on the chin. But my good nature is wearing thin. Given we are NOT bankrupt and therefore this is not true, that it has been posted to all the members on this forum which is pretty popular thanks to the good work of Steve - basically it does meet the burden of Defamation. The remedy is a heartfelt retraction and apology from yourself for using this word in your post. Now I could ask Steve to take it down - but I guess I will run up another hour of my lawyers fees and ask him what he thinks I should do.
Considering this is where you seem to want to communicate with me, how about I send you back your money and we call it quits?
Yep - and I have no problem with using my name at all. I know a bunch of you anyway. You have fished in my Glacier Bay 3480 and World Cat 320EC - so you know where I live and work from.
Oh and for "The Facts" we do have a 1800 number - 1800 752 661. And we do have people that work for us across Australia in the Ports and we even have a full time coordinator in Los Angeles and have done for the last 3 years.
Di Lyons
NewBoatsDIRECT
A Division of Leisure Freight & Import Pty Ltd
Hi "The Facts"
Okay so I think everyone pretty much has your number.
Yep you have given yourself away with your post name. So given how uninformed you are - you also don't know that I am a Uni qualified programmer and I have your email address, identity, street address and whom you work for. And yes to all of you that are itnerested - "The Facts" is a competitor of mine. Thanks for that. We all leave a footprint on the internet - as they say. Clearly "the facts" you don't know much about technology or the law.
So okay - you want everyone to know "the facts". Well hey read the Judges actual summation below from the court case for those of you having a slow nite tonight - you can read the whole thing for yourselves if you want. My actual press release written by a PR firm had a link to it.
Justice Raphael:
- In summary, the only solid evidence before me that the applicant was seeking to provide a time for the shipment of “No Hurry” and “Almost Paradise” appears in the emails from its agent relating to the delays it was experiencing, sent mid-July 2012, and in the eventual offer of the BBC Maple Lotta at the end of July 2012 for shipment in August.
- I believe the second issue can be dealt with rather summarily because whilst the time for compliance within the reasonable time passed, and this constituted repudiation which brought the contract to an end, it was not accepted by the respondent. Indeed, the conduct of the respondent, at least at first, affirmed the contract. The emails between 25 May and 5 June relating to the extra insurance required for the yachts indicate that the respondent was at that time treating the contract as being on foot. This extension of the insurance constituted the affirmation of the contracts. However, if the date of issue of the extended policies, 11 June 2012, is taken as the date of reaffirmation, and the next offer of a vessel came in effect on 31 July, a month and a half later, a second repudiation had occurred. I am therefore of the opinion that the purported cancellation of the contract on 1 August 2012 was valid.
- The authorities suggest that in circumstances where one party affirms a contract following breach of a fundamental term, or condition, any later claim for damages may be affected by this course of action: see Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361, which involved a charterparty and the demurrage clause which had been repeatedly breached throughout the existence of the charterparty. However, as the cross-claim has been abandoned such questions need not be considered in any great depth here.
- What is apparent from the above is that I am of the opinion that the further delays after
Leisure Freight
’s affirmation of the contract in June again constituted repudiation. Indeed, it seems to me that the factual scenario presents itself is far more akin to that described by Fullager J in Carr v Berriman (1953) 89 CLR 311, as cited by Brennan J in Laurinda in the extract at [54] of these reasons, that the applicant was not going to perform its contractual obligation to nominate a vessel unless or until it was convenient to it to do so. It is apparent from the emails sent by Sevenstar that the applicant would only perform the term as to the shipment date when it had sufficient base cargo to make a voyage from the United States to Australia financially viable. I believe that this evinced a clear intention on the part of the applicant that it would only perform its contractual obligation when it suited it. The result being that such performance would be substantially inconsistent with its contractual obligations. Consequently, I am satisfied that
- There may also be force in an argument that
- “If [the ship owner] or his agent breaks that [estimated loading] term by making the statement without any honest belief in its truth or without any reasonable grounds for it, he must take the consequences. It is at lowest a misrepresentation which entitles the other party to rescind: and at highest a breach of contract which goes to the root of the matter.”
- It is interesting to note that The Mihalis Angelos also stands for the proposition that a purported termination will be valid if there was a valid reason for the termination, even if that was not the reason given. Here, the reason given for termination was delay, and I have found that to be the case, however, it may be that misrepresentation could have equally founded the notice of termination. Ms Lyons testified that by that time she simply didn’t believe that the applicant would supply a vessel. Indeed, evidence was tendered to suggest that on 18 August the BBC Africa was in fact due in Houston and not in Palm Beach, although the estimated date for arrival of the BBC Africa was given on 31 July as 12 August 2012. That the estimated arrival was revised to 17 August on 8 August 2012, and then revised again to 24 August only on 23 August, appears to me to be irrelevant given that the purported cancellation occurred on 1 August 2012. But it does indicate that the respondent’s feelings about the applicant’s ability to provide shipment were correct.
- I have found that the contract was repudiated by the applicant’s delay as at the end of July 2012 and that, in consequence, the respondent did not repudiate the contract through its purported cancellation of the contracts as the applicant alleged. The termination of the contracts in respect of the shipment of the “No Hurry” and of the “Almost Paradise” were, to the contrary, valid.
Costs
- The applicant commenced these proceedings seeking damages for breach of contract in respect of the freight of three yachts. I have found in its favour in respect of the freight of one yacht, albeit at a considerably lesser sum than that claimed. I have found that the respondent’s rescission of the contract in respect of the other two yachts was valid and that therefore no freightage is payable. I believe that these findings should be reflected in the award of costs. However, it seems to me that the way in which the case was argued by the parties would make it difficult for a taxing officer to distinguish between the work done in respect of each vessel. I am of the view that subject only to there being an argument raised as a result of calderbank letters being sent or other matters which would bring the question of costs within Order 23 of the Federal Court Rules, for which purpose I will stay my orders for seven days, that the most appropriate order in this case is that each side should pay its own costs.
I certify that the preceding seventy-nine (79) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Raphael
If you suffer from insomnia - here is the link to the actual Judgement which is a public document by the way - unlike the what "the facts" has written to all of you above:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...sure%20freight
Now - this isn't over. There will be another installment very soon. Not that I think this is the right forum for it - but hey - I didn't start it - not here - not in court - but I will finish it. Belive me.
And yep - here is my name again in case you missed the bunch of other times
Di Lyons
NewBoatsDIRECT
A Division of Leisure Freight & Import Pty Ltd
Toll Free 1800 752 661
I know whom it is
Di Lyons
NewBoatsDIRECT
A Division of Leisure Freight & Import Pty Ltd
Hey Thanks "The facts"
I built it myself actually.
Like I said I am a programmer.
Di Lyons
NewBoatsDIRECT
A Division of Leisure Freight & Import Pty Ltd
Wow what a great way to drum up business ! How about Just supplying the trailer that was ordered and payed for instead of carrying on like a pork chop !
Di, kudo's to you for your spirited defence.
At least you are not hiding behind a screen name.
And in case anyone was wondering, no I don't have any affiliation with any of the people involved in either side of this situation. I am only commenting on what has been written on this forum.
cheers
Haydn
Remember to always log on before heading offshore.
Is the use of the word 'bankrupt' used as part of an inquiry, as in a person was asking a question or was is used as a direct defamatory insinuation towards the company?
The fact that it's followed by a question mark makes it used in the structure of a sentence doesn't it? With no implication.
If this is worth an hour of your lawyers time or a heartfelt retraction and apology then don't you think this sounds very petty to a group or perspective clients you advertise to? The title itself, and the words used probably went unnoticed to a lot of people up until now it's been put in the spot light. A tiny piece of this puzzle that I have no doubt has had a miniscule effect on your business compared to your response to it.
There are a lot of parts of this story that don't add up......unless of course......
Posting Permissions
