On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:02:23 +0800, Bjorn Vang Jensen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Don wrote:
>
>
>> And here is some food for thought:  The Peter Hughes release defines
>> "Releasees" as
>> Peter Hughes Diving, Walindi Plantation Dive Cruises Pty, Ltd. (owner of
>> the boat?)
>
>Well, this is obviously the release used on the Febrina, one of their boats
>in PNG.

Wrong boat.

Most probably wrong claim about the Wave Dancer not carrying
insurance in his preceding post to which I had already replied.



>> their principals, directors, officers, employees, agents, yada,
>> yada, yada.  The release does not seem to include the company that made
>the
>> boat, or the company that refitted the boat as a live-aboard dive boat.
>So
>> what if the families sue these companies claiming a defective boat
(rolled
>> too easily, etc) and then these companies sue Peter Hughes saying the
boat
>> wasn't defective but Hughes was negligent.  These companies never signed
a
>> release?


Gobbledy goop about BOAT defects, the investigation of which will
reveal absolutely nothing about any impropriety of the crew.


>Remind me to hire you if I ever get in one of those situations I
>described in a previous post :-)

And you want to hire this guy as YOUR lawyer?   :-)

On second thought, perhaps that's the way lawyers are SUPPOSED to
work.  Relevant FACTS?  Nah, they don't matter at all.

-- Bob.