Edward R. Cozzi

Yes, but remember that all the accessories were allegedly transferred from the original engine to the new long block. The numbers would move with the flame arrestor. I believe that the number is also on a tag on the bell housing, but I couldn't see it as we never had to pull the starboard from the boat. Remember, the suspect engine ran flawlessly the whole time the boat was in my possession.

offshoredrillin

They have to do that in order to satisfy that they arent allowing people to slander, therefore putting OSO in the middle of a liable suit. I would expect nothing less from them. You have to CYA, look at what Ed is going through now. someone always wants something for nothing, and I'm quite sure, that the attorney is working on a commission, and thats the only reason it got this far.


Sue used to be a girls name...Now it's a verb

DollaBill

Ed,

You did nothing wrong. Don't let lawyers intimidate you. Just stick to the facts and the matter will resolve itself.

Edward R. Cozzi

With regard to the timing cover being an obvious clue that the engine was a 415hp, wouldn't you have to pull the engine to see that sort of thing? Wouldn't the bell housing block that from view? My memory of bravo bellhousings is sketchy.[/QUOTE]

The timing cover is in the front behind the circulating water pump.
Just because the engine is a Gen VI doesn't mean it isn't a HP500. They were available both ways in 1996 as the supply of Gen V's ran out, they were replaced with Gen VI's.
Remember, the whole time I had this boat, the starboard engine ran perfectly. There was no reason to pay THAT much attention to it. While the port engine was out I put in new NGK spark plugs, just because it was so much easier with one engine out.

Phknlwyr

Ed:

I have litigated a few cases representing real estate agents whose customers (buyers) were burned by poor inspections. Most home inspectors' contracts have pretty strong exculpatory language that limits their liability to a refund of the cost of the inspection. (The buyers then go after the real estate agents because they need someone with adequate insurance to blame and try and collect from.) I haven't seen your standard engagement letter and/or contract, but if it has a limitation of liability, it is,most likely, enforceable. Do not give in to the phknlwyr's threats. I hope it all works out.

X-Rated30

DOH!! Note to self -- do not post in the morning before drinking coffee!!!

Edward R. Cozzi

I posted this in my response to the original "Bad Business Section" post.

While the boat was here this buyer spent $5,854.62 with me to repair, upgrade, detail and shrink wrap this boat prior to shipping to New Jersey.
He still owes me a balance of $1,004.62 on this original bill.
Do you suppose this whole thing is just something he has started to justify not paying the balance?

He did pay for the survey, so I didn't get Sumralled there!

SHARKEY-IMAGES

Just seen this in the paper the other day:


Court rules Web sites not liable for postings
Says federal law offers immunity
Published in the Asbury Park Press 02/1/05
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Web site operators are not liable for electronic messages posted by anonymous visitors, even if the content of the postings is intentionally malicious or potentially libelous, an appeals court ruled Monday.

The Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court ruled that Stephen Moldow, whose "Eye on Emerson" Web site contained information on local government activities and included a discussion forum, was immune from liability under a provision of federal communications law. The panel's decision affirmed a ruling by a lower court.

"We accomplished what we needed to accomplish — to purge the town of this Web site," said Gina Calogero, one of two Emerson council members who sued Moldow, the site's publisher, for damages. Calogero and Vincent Donato, who both resigned from council in 2002, claimed the site's electronic bulletin board contained negative messages from third parties, which attacked them professionally and personally.

It was not immediately clear when the Web site was dismantled. A call to Richard Mahoney, the lawyer representing Moldow, was not returned Monday.
Fictitiously named anonymous posters were also named in the suit, though the claim against the fictitious defendants ultimately was dropped.

The defendants argued that Moldow had "actively participated in selective editing, deletion and rewriting of anonymously posted messages," and therefore was responsible for the content of the postings.

The appeals panel disagreed, saying Congress has crafted rules for electronic publishers that differ significantly from those for publishers of print materials, granting "broad immunity" to e-publishers in its 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Calogero, however, said she believed the ruling allows for situations in which Web masters could be held liable for the content of others within the narrow confines of the federal law.

WesSmith

Ed -

Maybe you need to do credit checks on your customers from now on !

I just don't see the issue here...a mechanical survey - which in my opinion would've been necessary to determine the engine questions in play here - is VERY different than a structual survey which is what was furnished.

Just my .02.

Edward R. Cozzi

You know Wes, I always try to do the right thing by people. That's why my home phone number is on my business card, as I have never had to hide from anybody. I've always tried to set a good example for my children by being honest and stand-up when dealing with people.

If I honestly miss something in a survey, and it happens sometimes, I make it good. Not because I'm afraid of being sued, but I feel I let that customer down who trusted me to look out for his interests. I run my whole life that way because that's how I was brought up.