Tough crowd.......not even a partial edit this time...censorship at its finest.
I better shape up or else...or else...litigation.
I better shape up or else...or else...litigation.
boycott Peter Hughes Diving
- Thread starter sdiver02
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I kinda kept an eye on this as it was unfolding and then, as well as now I see what I call the karma theory of liability, which goes something like this:
Well, they did THIS wrong, and THAT wrong and this OTHER thing wrong, none of which had ANY bearing on the actual accident, but gosh durnit, it SHOULD!
Any and all mistakes proceeding tying up in a safe harbor have no bearing on the accident, unless you want to sue them for not being clairvoyant. All the talk about disabled radios, etc. is a moot point, they were in a safe harbor when they needed to be. Other ships were there and they rode out the storm just fine. Now if you can show that the lines were rotted, frayed or whatever, THAT would be something to sue over. But any and all negligent acts leading up to being in a safe harbor when they needed to are moot points.
Roak
Not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but Ive served on rule arbitration committees for competitions at a national level, and in almost all cases once you strip away the karma arguments the call is fairly simple.
Well, they did THIS wrong, and THAT wrong and this OTHER thing wrong, none of which had ANY bearing on the actual accident, but gosh durnit, it SHOULD!
Any and all mistakes proceeding tying up in a safe harbor have no bearing on the accident, unless you want to sue them for not being clairvoyant. All the talk about disabled radios, etc. is a moot point, they were in a safe harbor when they needed to be. Other ships were there and they rode out the storm just fine. Now if you can show that the lines were rotted, frayed or whatever, THAT would be something to sue over. But any and all negligent acts leading up to being in a safe harbor when they needed to are moot points.
Roak
Not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but Ive served on rule arbitration committees for competitions at a national level, and in almost all cases once you strip away the karma arguments the call is fairly simple.
ScubaDawg2
Guest
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 0
Peter Hughes has lost my business.
Sheltered offshore corporations =====>>> SCUMBAG
:fury:
Sheltered offshore corporations =====>>> SCUMBAG
:fury:
Why would anyone in their right mind set themselves up so as to increase their potential liability? A corporation's purpose is to make money for shareholders. It is not to provide a fat target for law suits.
BTW, what would be an example of an "unsheltered" corporation, whether foreign or domestic. Sheltering from liability is one reason people form corporations.
Regardless, your suggestion that overseas incorporation is somehow improper lacks merit and is not supported by facts or law. Oftentimes, there are distinct advantages in incorporating in the country where you intend to do business. In some cases it is almost a requirement due to currency laws and laws that restrict foreigner's ownership of assets in the host country. Finally, there are important tax considerations and other factors that make this decision significantly more complicated than you suggest.
I respectfully suggest that potential liability is one of the less significant factors to be considered when forming a foreign corporation. If the other factors warrant incorporation in a particular jurisdiction, you can always insure for the risk.
You are free to deal with whomever you want. In order to avoid rank hypocrisy, however, I assume that you will apply your policy equally by refusing to deal with foreign corporations that cater to Americans. That takes out several of the Carribean resorts (i.e., Atlantis), which are either foreign corporations or wholly owned foreign subsidiaries of U.S. Corporations. It also eliminates the foreign flag airlines and, of course, most major cruise lines. Of course, overseas travel will also become more difficult as I doubt that a foreign hotel will be willing to re-incorporate in the U.S. so as to ensure that you are able to sue them if you slip in the bath. Finally, you should be careful regarding the brands of scuba equipment that you purchase as some of the manufacturers (Beuchat and Mares come to mind) have several corporate layers in various countries, with the U.S. sub being a sales and service operation with potentially limited assets.
JamesK
Contributor
Care to elaborate on this? I am trying hard to figure out what is so wrong with it?
Now there's a curious claim... Now, not that I'm questioning your understanding of international business, but, uh, just exactly how would you set up a liveaboard in Belize?
Rick
DivePartner1
Contributor
Put another way, if someone from, say, Belize or Mexico wanted to book a dive in Florida, would you expect the LDS to incorporate in Belize or Mexico to faciliate the diver? Should the Fla. LDS agree to resolve any disputes arising from the Florida dive in the court system of Belize or Mexico, under their laws, simply because the foriegner chose to travel to the distant land to spend money?
Anyone not comfortable with the liklihood that boats or resorts outside of our your native land will do business in accordance with legal practices of their own lands should stay at home.
Natasha
Contributor
Maybe no one will click ..but I found this to be an interesting web link.
So I guess not everyone is going to " Boycott Peter Hughes."
http://www.wyland.com/divetrips/
So I guess not everyone is going to " Boycott Peter Hughes."
http://www.wyland.com/divetrips/
The USA is the last place I would set up a corporation. One spilled coffee on a lap, and your out of business. Too many lawyers, too many lawsuits. Canada is not that much better. However up here in the cold north, if you sue and loose, you pay all costs and legal fees for *both* parties. If you win, the other party pays all your costs. So you had better be darn sure that you have a case, or it's gonna cost ya.
It sure keeps the frivolous lawsuits out of the courts!
JamesK
Contributor
AHhhh! A loser pays system!!!! America is in desperate need of a system like this! If these idiots knew that they would have to come out of their own pocket for ALL court costs and legal fees, we would have a LOT less stupid lawsuits clogging up our judicial system. I really wish we had that!!!
Similar threads
