|
Originally Posted by Steve 1
(Post 3025209)
What are they going to use then??? You still do not get it!!
Ok, I dont get it. Hows this... only you get it! Everyone else is stupid and making flower planters. UD |
Originally Posted by Uncle Dave
(Post 3025221)
Ok, I dont get it.
Hows this... only you get it! Everyone else is stupid and making flower planters. UD |
Originally Posted by Steve 1
(Post 3025223)
LOL This is the way it usually goes here!! That is it? So much for trying to inform an Expert! You make Flower Planters BTW
Along the way.... Ill give skater a ring and order up a 32ft flower planter! UD |
Originally Posted by Uncle Dave
(Post 3025228)
Well Send me to the burn ward.....
Along the way.... Ill give skater a ring and order up a 32ft flower planter! UD |
Originally Posted by Steve 1
(Post 3025237)
Dude That's it !!!!!you do not learn just act stupid!!!Do not try that Here, I hold Skater and Buzzi Who both use Balsa in my highest Regard!
You use Foam. Im arguing Balsa is a superior Core material for this application You say its not. Its not just me, the finest most long lived successful names in the industry use balsa for a reason. Nothing you say changes this, and it has nothing to do with me. UD |
Originally Posted by Uncle Dave
(Post 3025239)
Skater uses Balsa.
You use Foam. Im arguing Balsa is a superior Core material for this application You say its not. Its not just me, the finest most long lived successful names in the industry use balsa for a reason. Nothing you say changes this, and it has nothing to do with me. UD Uncle I do not care what you you use Got it?? I was only pointing out the misconceptions of your reasoning. |
But you know of course there are people trying to get it banned from marine use!
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Dave
(Post 3025239)
Skater uses Balsa.
You use Foam. Im arguing Balsa is a superior Core material for this application You say its not. Its not just me, the finest most long lived successful names in the industry use balsa for a reason. Nothing you say changes this, and it has nothing to do with me. UD |
Public Statement Recieved from Plaintiff
Bertram 630 "Absolutely" Quote: PUBLIC STATEMENT NO. 1 January 14, 2009 As owners of the 630 Bertram Sportfish ABSOLUTELY, which sank off South Carolina in the Atlantic Ocean November 6, 2009, we wish to inform the public and potential future purchasers of new Bertram 630 Sportfish yachts of our experience. After pre-purchase marine survey, we purchased the ABSOLUTELY from MarineMax as a new yacht. We were informed that Bertram had transferred the vessel to MarineMax for resale, and that we were the first retail owners of this vessel. MarineMax arranged delivery of the vessel by an employee of MarineMax, who is an experienced delivery Captain. During delivery of the vessel from New York to West Palm Beach, the ABSOLUTELY sank and became a total loss. The Captain and Mate escaped without significant injury. The Captain reports that he was at the helm with the autopilot off at the time of the incident. He reports operating the vessel at approximately 25 knots in 3-4 foot following seas, when, upon entering a wave, the bow of the vessel folded back in catastrophic failure and the vessel came to an abrupt halt. The Captain and Mate suffered bruises and minor injuries. The Captain denies any physical contact with the reef buoy or any other solid object. After the incident, the Captain reports making 4 mayday calls with positions within approximately 12 minutes, before he and the Mate abandoned the vessel from the stern and entered the vessel's life raft. The Captain reports the transom was intact without visible damage at the time. The Captain reports he and the Mate were picked up within approximately 5 minutes by the crew of the F/V PACIFICS. The PACIFICS steamed to meet a USCG vessel to which the Captain and Mate were transferred. Later on November 6, a USCG helicopter reported no vessel visible at the last given position and a large debris field stretching to the southwest. We purchased ABSOLUTELY for use as an offshore sportfisher at our resort hotel on the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean. Due to the sinking, we have lost our investment in the vessel and incurred substantial consequential costs. We were not aboard the ABSOLUTELY on the day of the incident, and we have no first hand knowledge whether the vessel suffered the failure by striking a 250 pound plastic buoy or suffered the failure by hitting a wave with the bow. Our marine surveyors and naval architects indicate that the post casualty photographs show manufacturing defects which caused or contributed to the loss of the vessel. Accordingly, we took appropriate legal action against Bertram and MarineMax in the United States District Court. We are a business and our focus is on the profitability of our resort hotel. We view litigation as an undesirable cost. We wanted Bertram to give us a comparable replacement vessel. We offered to drop our suit, if Bertram would give us a comparable replacement vessel. Our proposal would have protected the consumer and allowed the marine industry participants to litigate among themselves over the cause of the sinking. Bertram refused to give us a comparable replacement vessel. Bertram then offered to sell us a demonstrator Bertram 630 with 800 hours on the engines for $1.8 million USD. Bertram continues to refuse to give us a replacement vessel. Stephen Owen Dhevatara Beach Seychelles, Ltd. |
Originally Posted by tommymonza
(Post 3025264)
Public Statement Recieved from Plaintiff
Bertram 630 "Absolutely" Quote: PUBLIC STATEMENT NO. 1 January 14, 2009 As owners of the 630 Bertram Sportfish ABSOLUTELY, which sank off South Carolina in the Atlantic Ocean November 6, 2009, we wish to inform the public and potential future purchasers of new Bertram 630 Sportfish yachts of our experience. After pre-purchase marine survey, we purchased the ABSOLUTELY from MarineMax as a new yacht. We were informed that Bertram had transferred the vessel to MarineMax for resale, and that we were the first retail owners of this vessel. MarineMax arranged delivery of the vessel by an employee of MarineMax, who is an experienced delivery Captain. During delivery of the vessel from New York to West Palm Beach, the ABSOLUTELY sank and became a total loss. The Captain and Mate escaped without significant injury. The Captain reports that he was at the helm with the autopilot off at the time of the incident. He reports operating the vessel at approximately 25 knots in 3-4 foot following seas, when, upon entering a wave, the bow of the vessel folded back in catastrophic failure and the vessel came to an abrupt halt. The Captain and Mate suffered bruises and minor injuries. The Captain denies any physical contact with the reef buoy or any other solid object. After the incident, the Captain reports making 4 mayday calls with positions within approximately 12 minutes, before he and the Mate abandoned the vessel from the stern and entered the vessel's life raft. The Captain reports the transom was intact without visible damage at the time. The Captain reports he and the Mate were picked up within approximately 5 minutes by the crew of the F/V PACIFICS. The PACIFICS steamed to meet a USCG vessel to which the Captain and Mate were transferred. Later on November 6, a USCG helicopter reported no vessel visible at the last given position and a large debris field stretching to the southwest. We purchased ABSOLUTELY for use as an offshore sportfisher at our resort hotel on the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean. Due to the sinking, we have lost our investment in the vessel and incurred substantial consequential costs. We were not aboard the ABSOLUTELY on the day of the incident, and we have no first hand knowledge whether the vessel suffered the failure by striking a 250 pound plastic buoy or suffered the failure by hitting a wave with the bow. Our marine surveyors and naval architects indicate that the post casualty photographs show manufacturing defects which caused or contributed to the loss of the vessel. Accordingly, we took appropriate legal action against Bertram and MarineMax in the United States District Court. We are a business and our focus is on the profitability of our resort hotel. We view litigation as an undesirable cost. We wanted Bertram to give us a comparable replacement vessel. We offered to drop our suit, if Bertram would give us a comparable replacement vessel. Our proposal would have protected the consumer and allowed the marine industry participants to litigate among themselves over the cause of the sinking. Bertram refused to give us a comparable replacement vessel. Bertram then offered to sell us a demonstrator Bertram 630 with 800 hours on the engines for $1.8 million USD. Bertram continues to refuse to give us a replacement vessel. Stephen Owen Dhevatara Beach Seychelles, Ltd. Have they raised it yet? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.