Regarding the assumption of "25 years of liability," and without offering
legal advice, one would assume that if a company wanted to buy the rights to
sell the plans to the KR series, and to build kits to these plans, the
company would not "buy" Rand-Robinson Engineering, but would instead buy
inte
There never is a connection between the previous manufacturer; plan seller
or material supplier only to the
previous liability.
- Original Message -
From: "Max Hardberger"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: KR>Rand/Robinson Eng
quot;
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: KR>Rand/Robinson Engineering--Assumption of Liability
> There never is a connection between the previous manufacturer; plan seller
> or material supplier only to the
> previous liability.
> - Original Message -
>
the very real possibility of losing his shirt.
> - Original Message -
> From: "joe"
> To: "KRnet"
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:44 PM
> Subject: Re: KR>Rand/Robinson Engineering--Assumption of Liability
>
>
Excuse me, I didn't realize a possible test in court is not
allowed.
- Original Message -
From: "Max Hardberger"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: KR>Rand/Robinson Engineering--Assumption of Liability
> "de facto&qu
Beech was sued for 6million and lost. ref: seat problem
- Original Message -
From: "Max Hardberger"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: KR>Rand/Robinson Engineering--Assumption of Liability
> "de facto"? "having in re
your
advice.
- Original Message -
From: "Max Hardberger"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: KR>Rand/Robinson Engineering--Assumption of Liability
> "de facto"? "having in reality assumed that role"? "ergo up
7 matches
Mail list logo
