Has anyone who has a lower no. Know when we will get our airplanes it was supose to be mid Augest for me 215. Now the update said that it will not be till Augest before they even start the 20 again.So that means even if they can build one in 5 weeks it will be at least mid september delivery. Im realy disapointed personaly.I talked to Alison she is going to check this out for me and let me know by Thursday. The 5th of July.Does anyone know how long it now takes to build an sr 22 or 20.At least we have the improvments to be thankful for. Don #215
At #235, I’m starting to think about buying a winter coat. Do I need the autumn version or the dead-of-winter version? I guess the best place to buy one is in Minneapolis at the big mall. Being from Tampa, we only own sweaters and light jackets. I wish Cirrus had bought out Piper in Vero Beach.
Has anyone who has a lower no. Know when we will get our airplanes it was supose to be mid Augest for me 215. Now the update said that it will not be till Augest before they even start the 20 again.So that means even if they can build one in 5 weeks it will be at least mid september delivery. Im realy disapointed personaly.I talked to Alison she is going to check this out for me and let me know by Thursday. The 5th of July.Does anyone know how long it now takes to build an sr 22 or 20.At least we have the improvments to be thankful for. Don #215
The -20’s won’t be on the line for a long time.Company needs to catch up with the -22’s first and that’s at least still a good 6 months.They are not being honest with you.That’s too bad.It’s all about the all mighty dollar and the -20’s dont cut it for now.The -22’s do make a profit.If they told you aug they were lieing through their teeth and they knew it.Takes a good 6 weeks for completion.There are many in front of your #215 so it’s going to be quite a wait.Right now cirrus is only a -22 production.
It seems to me that if the SR20 line is not re-opened soon Cirrus could be vunerable to breech of contract lawsuits.
No matter what the fine print says, there is clearly an implied contract to deliver SR20’s to those who want them. The “option” to switch to the SR22 might well be interpreted by a court to be a classic bait-and-switch situation. If I were still an SR20 position holder I’d be ready to make an issue of this right about now.
Cirrus might want to think about using some of their new capital to subsidize the existing SR20 contracts rather than spend more money fighting what I think will be inevitable legal battles over this.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
Joe
Has anyone who has a lower no. Know when we will get our airplanes it was supose to be mid Augest for me 215. Now the update said that it will not be till Augest before they even start the 20 again.So that means even if they can build one in 5 weeks it will be at least mid september delivery. Im realy disapointed personaly.I talked to Alison she is going to check this out for me and let me know by Thursday. The 5th of July.Does anyone know how long it now takes to build an sr 22 or 20.At least we have the improvments to be thankful for. Don #215
Hey nice to see another Floridian (I’m in Boca Raton) thinking the same way - my position,368, is for March, brrrrrr - but then again that could end up being summer 
Some day we’ll have a Florida Fly In and warm them all up!
At #235, I’m starting to think about buying a winter coat. Do I need the autumn version or the dead-of-winter version? I guess the best place to buy one is in Minneapolis at the big mall. Being from Tampa, we only own sweaters and light jackets. I wish Cirrus had bought out Piper in Vero Beach.
Boca is a good place for a southern Fly-in. We have relatives in the area – Delray and Palm Bch Gardens and fly into BCT. Did you get a tower at BCT yet? Last time we flew into Palm Bch Gardens instead of BCT. Both airports are great. We’re at Vandenberg in Tampa, which has a new terminal, runway, new hangers soon, plus more. The northern folk might like it here too – Busch Gardens, the Clearwater/St. Pete beaches, and, of course, Mickey Mouse is only 45 minutes away. Fantasy of Flight, Kermit Weeks’ air museum, is close by. If you missed Sun n’ Fun in Lakeland (30 min drive, 10 min by air), then you may have missed the air museum that is year round.
Hey nice to see another Floridian (I’m in Boca Raton) thinking the same way - my position,368, is for March, brrrrrr - but then again that could end up being summer
At #235, I’m starting to think about buying a winter coat. Do I need the autumn version or the dead-of-winter version? I guess the best place to buy one is in Minneapolis at the big mall. Being from Tampa, we only own sweaters and light jackets. I wish Cirrus had bought out Piper in Vero Beach.
The “option” to switch to the SR22 might well be interpreted by a court to be a classic bait-and-switch situation. If I were still an SR20 position holder I’d be ready to make an issue of this right about now.
Cirrus might want to think about using some of their new capital to subsidize the existing SR20 contracts rather than spend more money fighting what I think will be inevitable legal battles over this.
Joe: Bait and switch implies some pressure by the seller to have the buyer switch to a higher priced item. I don’t think Cirrus has done anything to pressure anybody to switch by offering them an option to convert their position to a SR22.
As far as the allocaton of production resources is concerned, they did make the decision to get the SR22 out the door in significant numbers. However, I haven’t seen anything yet that indicates that they are abandoning the SR20. Also, I would hope that someone who holds a SR20 position that was delayed by the allocation of production resources to the SR22 would not immediately be looking for a court to come in and second guess Cirrus’s decision to produce the SR22 in place of some additional SR20’s. Cirrus is taking major steps in the advancement of GA and we should be praising them, not whinning.
It seems to me that if the SR20 line is not re-opened soon Cirrus could be vunerable to breech of contract lawsuits.
No matter what the fine print says, there is clearly an implied contract to deliver SR20’s to those who want them. The “option” to switch to the SR22 might well be interpreted by a court to be a classic bait-and-switch situation. If I were still an SR20 position holder I’d be ready to make an issue of this right about now.
Cirrus might want to think about using some of their new capital to subsidize the existing SR20 contracts rather than spend more money fighting what I think will be inevitable legal battles over this.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
Joe
We all got an update in early March about when our contract aircraft would be delivered, approximatly. Let us all keep our heads. Espically if anyone is reacting to a “Jeff” or “Glue Guy” post. “Jeff”, and or “Glue Guy” are either disgruntiled employee{s} or a person{s}{I use the term VERY loosely} who get off on causing other folks to worry. Try to e-mail “JeffStomps big bugs”, your mail will be returned. So before anyone starts to talk about lawsuits and rebellion, lets gets the facts from an appropriate source. Maybe the newly formed COPA can help here. MIKE #396
I am not a disgruntled employee.I am just telling you info they won’t.They tell us -20’s wont start till -22’s are caught up.Whenever that is.I don’t see any of them even close right now.If they hadnt switched to the -22 production, money would have been poor and who knows what could have happened.I believe the -22 deliveries really helped the company money wise and kept the creditors paid.
Joe,
I spoke to Sherri Reynolds at Cirrus just last week and she told me that SR20 production is restarting in August. This explained why she couldn’t give me a specific delivery date for SR22 #95. She thought that enough SR22’s would be in the production flow at that time to make my delivery in mid-September. The lack of a firm date is due to SR20 production restart.
I don’t see why CD would say that I cannot have a firm delivery date now because of SR20 production starting up again unless this was true.
Anybody hear a different story from our friends at Cirrus Design?
George Savage
Maybe they have to make the investor happy and to them that’s what counts as that’s payin’ light bills.Cirrus only holds 51% right now I believe.They sold out a portion.Just a rumor?
I’m not whining. I opted out of my SR20 contract long ago.
I think it’s great that some position holders (like yourself) consider themselves to be as much partners as customers. If I were Cirrus I’d be positively delighted. But does everyone feel that way?
You have a quite valid point about there being no overt pressure to switch to the SR22. But how about the implied pressure? “Well, we’re fresh out of those cheap SR20’s, and there’s gonna be a long wait for one, but if you switch to one of these sexy SR22 babies we just might get one to you a little quicker.” Remember, when the 20 contracts were written there was no such thing as a 22. The clear implication was “we will deliver you an airplane as soon as we can,” not “as soon as we can make some money selling a more expensive airplane” that we hope most of you will switch to anyway, especially since we failed to deliver some things we promised on the 20 (like payload). Further, there was much touting of the ramp-up to one-a-day as a “bait.” They just failed to mention that the “one” would not necessairily be an SR20.
For all I know, no one has lost a place in line or had their delivery delayed due to the SR22 production switch. If not, fine. No problem. Disregard this post.
But if people have been able to line-jump by switching to a 22 (albeit voluntarily), or if the production rate has suffered by the introduction of the new model, then I think there has been a breech of faith for which, at the very least, those forced to wait longer should be compensated.
Joe
The “option” to switch to the SR22 might well be interpreted by a court to be a classic bait-and-switch situation. If I were still an SR20 position holder I’d be ready to make an issue of this right about now.
Cirrus might want to think about using some of their new capital to subsidize the existing SR20 contracts rather than spend more money fighting what I think will be inevitable legal battles over this.
Joe: Bait and switch implies some pressure by the seller to have the buyer switch to a higher priced item. I don’t think Cirrus has done anything to pressure anybody to switch by offering them an option to convert their position to a SR22.
As far as the allocaton of production resources is concerned, they did make the decision to get the SR22 out the door in significant numbers. However, I haven’t seen anything yet that indicates that they are abandoning the SR20. Also, I would hope that someone who holds a SR20 position that was delayed by the allocation of production resources to the SR22 would not immediately be looking for a court to come in and second guess Cirrus’s decision to produce the SR22 in place of some additional SR20’s. Cirrus is taking major steps in the advancement of GA and we should be praising them, not whinning.
Just a thought to consider: How many people on the SR20 waiting list have acutally had to wait longer (by number of planes delivered) than they would have had Cirrus not designed, sold and built the SR22?
When I opted to upgrade to the '22 from the '20, ed up waiting longer, about 5 months longer. (My original contract number was #119 and I received word that it would be delivered late December 2000. I got my SR22, #17, in mid May 2001.) Others who were behind me in the SR20 queue whoo did not convert benefited and moved up as I ‘stepped out of line.’ Many received their planes before I did.
I made a choice to buy the SR20 about 4 1/2 years before delivery. I, of course did not expect it to take nearly that long, but I did expect delays (and in that respect was not disappointed).
I think, but I am not sure, that most people in the SR20 queue are actually no worse off than they were before the SR22’s came into being. I doubt this will be the case for long, however.
The folks who are waiting for the SR20a’s will receive benefits like the better landing light position, better transponder and more options (TCAS, ARNAV engine monitoring). I’m sure you will have to pay for some of this, but those that preceded you didn’t even get those options.
Some wise man once said, All good things come to those who wait." All I am saying is before you get too mad, look at the entire picture.
Joe, I think it would be useful to distinguish between public relations-consumer good will, on the one hand, and actionable legal items on the other.
You are certainly right that Cirrus has sacrificed some people’s good will by putting the 20’s on hold while concentrating on 22’s. They no doubt have lost some future business for the 20s too – it must be very hard to sell them now, with no apparent movement on the production line. Hey, they lost your business, which you might have given them if they’d been able to deliver a 20 in a few months. The company made a deliberate trade-off – annoying some customers, while emphasizing higher-margin production. We’ll see in business terms whether that was the right or wrong choice.
(My vote is Right. Running out of money, and therefore REALLY delaying everyone’s deliveries, was the more acute threat six months ago.)
You may well disagree, and consider this a Wrong decision. But, with respect, it’s quite far fetched to suggest this is a “breach of contract” / deceptive advertising issue. What you would have to demonstrate is that, by switching to 22s this year, Cirrus gave you your plane later (a) than you had a contractual right to rely upon, and (b) than they could have done otherwise.
Setting aside question (a) for a moment, it would be a real struggle to try to prove point (b). Because Cirrus could plausibly have argued that, absent the 22, it would have taken them so much more time to raise the working capital that you would have not received your 20 any faster anyway. One word summary of this argument: Lancair. They were certified at the same time as Cirrus and have now delivered, what, a dozen planes?
The right solution here is the market one. They’ve lost your goodwill – so they’ve lost your business! That’s how it goes. (Though obviously the airplane and company have not lost your interest, to judge by this board.) I could also imagine this scenario: someone bought a far-off 20 contract before the switch to 22s; now fears that he won’t get a 20 within a reasonable time; and so asks for a refund of the non-refundable deposit. The reason would be to say that conditions had changed since he put down his money. Don’t know if Cirrus would agree – but that would be a more reasonable negotiation than a lawsuit, IMHO.
In short: potential customers can question whether the current 22 emphasis makes those customers feel ill-treated. If so,they don’t have to buy this company’s planes. But, really, are you suggesting that customers waste their (and Cirrus’s) time thinking about lawsuits??? The only money about which a customer could coneivably sue is the $15,000 deposit. How long would that last, after legal fees?
(By the way – I went to law school for a while, and then saw the light! On the other hand, I ended up in the only line of work with lower public esteem than lawyers: journalism!)
Cordially, jim f
I’m not whining. I opted out of my SR20 contract long ago.
I think it’s great that some position holders (like yourself) consider themselves to be as much partners as customers. If I were Cirrus I’d be positively delighted. But does everyone feel that way?
You have a quite valid point about there being no overt pressure to switch to the SR22. But how about the implied pressure? “Well, we’re fresh out of those cheap SR20’s, and there’s gonna be a long wait for one, but if you switch to one of these sexy SR22 babies we just might get one to you a little quicker.” Remember, when the 20 contracts were written there was no such thing as a 22. The clear implication was “we will deliver you an airplane as soon as we can,” not “as soon as we can make some money selling a more expensive airplane” that we hope most of you will switch to anyway, especially since we failed to deliver some things we promised on the 20 (like payload). Further, there was much touting of the ramp-up to one-a-day as a “bait.” They just failed to mention that the “one” would not necessairily be an SR20.
For all I know, no one has lost a place in line or had their delivery delayed due to the SR22 production switch. If not, fine. No problem. Disregard this post.
But if people have been able to line-jump by switching to a 22 (albeit voluntarily), or if the production rate has suffered by the introduction of the new model, then I think there has been a breech of faith for which, at the very least, those forced to wait longer should be compensated.
Joe
The “option” to switch to the SR22 might well be interpreted by a court to be a classic bait-and-switch situation. If I were still an SR20 position holder I’d be ready to make an issue of this right about now.
Cirrus might want to think about using some of their new capital to subsidize the existing SR20 contracts rather than spend more money fighting what I think will be inevitable legal battles over this.
Joe: Bait and switch implies some pressure by the seller to have the buyer switch to a higher priced item. I don’t think Cirrus has done anything to pressure anybody to switch by offering them an option to convert their position to a SR22.
As far as the allocaton of production resources is concerned, they did make the decision to get the SR22 out the door in significant numbers. However, I haven’t seen anything yet that indicates that they are abandoning the SR20. Also, I would hope that someone who holds a SR20 position that was delayed by the allocation of production resources to the SR22 would not immediately be looking for a court to come in and second guess Cirrus’s decision to produce the SR22 in place of some additional SR20’s. Cirrus is taking major steps in the advancement of GA and we should be praising them, not whinning.
Sorry, Correction of the second paragraph.
Just a thought to consider: How many people on the SR20 waiting list have acutally had to wait longer (by number of planes delivered) than they would have had Cirrus not designed, sold and built the SR22?
When I opted to upgrade to the '22 from the '20, >
I end…
ed up waiting longer, about 5 months longer. (My original contract number was #119 and I received word that it would be delivered late December 2000. I got my SR22, #17, in mid May 2001.) Others who were behind me in the SR20 queue whoo did not convert benefited and moved up as I ‘stepped out of line.’ Many received their planes before I did.
I made a choice to buy the SR20 about 4 1/2 years before delivery. I, of course did not expect it to take nearly that long, but I did expect delays (and in that respect was not disappointed).
I think, but I am not sure, that most people in the SR20 queue are actually no worse off than they were before the SR22’s came into being. I doubt this will be the case for long, however.
The folks who are waiting for the SR20a’s will receive benefits like the better landing light position, better transponder and more options (TCAS, ARNAV engine monitoring). I’m sure you will have to pay for some of this, but those that preceded you didn’t even get those options.
Some wise man once said, All good things come to those who wait." All I am saying is before you get too mad, look at the entire picture.
Jim,
Joe, I think it would be useful to distinguish between public relations-consumer good will, on the one hand, and actionable legal items on the other.
I think those already sued (or prosecuted) for using bait-and-switch tactics would agree that such practices are indeed actionable.
You are certainly right that Cirrus has sacrificed some people’s good will by putting the 20’s on hold while concentrating on 22’s. They no doubt have lost some future business for the 20s too – it must be very hard to sell them now, with no apparent movement on the production line. Hey, they lost your business, which you might have given them if they’d been able to deliver a 20 in a few months. The company made a deliberate trade-off – annoying some customers, while emphasizing higher-margin production. We’ll see in business terms whether that was the right or wrong choice.
“Annoying” or “defrauding”? After all, the SR20 deposits are not in an escrow account - they are being used to build the SR22! I for one did not plunk down $15K to subsidize someone else’s airplane, and I doubt many others did either.
(My vote is Right. Running out of money, and therefore REALLY delaying everyone’s deliveries, was the more acute threat six months ago.)
You may well disagree, and consider this a Wrong decision. But, with respect, it’s quite far fetched to suggest this is a “breach of contract” / deceptive advertising issue. What you would have to demonstrate is that, by switching to 22s this year, Cirrus gave you your plane later (a) than you had a contractual right to rely upon, and (b) than they could have done otherwise.
Setting aside question (a) for a moment,
I don’t blame you for setting “(a)” aside. The contract is there in black and white.
it would be a real struggle to try to prove point (b). Because Cirrus could plausibly have argued that, absent the 22, it would have taken them so much more time to raise the working capital that you would have not received your 20 any faster anyway.
Well, perhaps. But I still feel that if the SR20 position holders’ patience is necessary to make Cirrus a success, they should be compensated for that patience. A little of that SR22 profit should be used for few goodies for the long-suffering SR20 people. “I know you had to wait, Mr. Depositor, and to show you our appreciation…”
One word summary of this argument: Lancair. They were certified at the same time as Cirrus and have now delivered, what, a dozen planes?
Yes, but Lancair is taking a conservative approach, with conservative returns. Cirrus has delivered more, but a Ponzi scheme will deliver some pretty fantastic returns early on too! Remember, the SR20 deposits not are being used for the SR20 buyers’ benefit; they’re being spent to allow someone else to get a good deal (if the comments about the SR22 being a better value are to be believed) and Cirrus to make a profit.
The right solution here is the market one. They’ve lost your goodwill – so they’ve lost your business! That’s how it goes. (Though obviously the airplane and company have not lost your interest, to judge by this board.)
Gulty as charged, at least as to my continued interest!
I could also imagine this scenario: someone bought a far-off 20 contract before the switch to 22s; now fears that he won’t get a 20 within a reasonable time; and so asks for a refund of the non-refundable deposit. The reason would be to say that conditions had changed since he put down his money. Don’t know if Cirrus would agree – but that would be a more reasonable negotiation than a lawsuit, IMHO.
Fair enough, but with interest (in compensation for the company’s having had the use of the money), and with compensation (for having waited in vain).
In short: potential customers can question whether the current 22 emphasis makes those customers feel ill-treated. If so,they don’t have to buy this company’s planes. But, really, are you suggesting that customers waste their (and Cirrus’s) time thinking about lawsuits??? The only money about which a customer could coneivably sue is the $15,000 deposit. How long would that last, after legal fees?
I agree that it might not be practical, and I have never even said that anyone should do it. I just think that it’s inevitable that someone will do it out of frustration, or that maybe even some ambitious Assistant DA might take notice.
(By the way – I went to law school for a while, and then saw the light! On the other hand, I ended up in the only line of work with lower public esteem than lawyers: journalism!)
Cordially, jim f
Cordially, Joe
Hi Joe,
I am a great believer in the principle that when people have basically different instincts or predictions about the future, it’s useful to make a bet! The classic case here was Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon placing a bet about future resource shortages. Twenty years ago Ehrlich thought all resources everywhere were about to be used up. Julian Simon (who died a year or two ago – a very interesting man) thought that huge new discoveries were about to be made. So they bet on the future prices of copper, oil, tungsten, etc. The prices fell, as Simon predicted, and he won the large bet.
So how about the same principle applied to your assessment that what is going on is illegal “bait and switch” tactics and that therefore there will be legal action against Cirrus:
I just think that it’s inevitable that someone will do it out of frustration, or that maybe even some ambitious Assistant DA might take notice.<
I will bet an enormous sum that no one would win such a suit; I’ll bet nearly as much that no DA will file such a suit; and I’ll bet nearly as much as that that no position holder will file it. [Heisenberg effect waiver: if anyone is aware of our bet and then files a suit for reasons influenced by it, that doesn’t count.] So how about this:
-
If within the next two years, some SR20 position holder wins a suit against Cirrus because of its current emphasis on 22 production, I will buy you 100 tanks of gas for your plane. If no one wins such a suit, you will buy me 50 tanks. See, I’m giving you odds! Deal?
-
If a DA files an action against Cirrus for its SR20/22 production policies in the next year, I will buy you 50 tanksfull of gas. If no DA files such an action in the next year, you will buy me 50 tanks. Deal?
-
If some SR20 position holder independently (ie, not related to knowledge of this bet) files suit in the next year, I will buy you 50 tanks. If there is no such a suit, you will buy me 100 tanks. You’re giving me odds in this case, since this is “inevitable.”
Deal?
Let me know if you’re interested! Otherwise, we’ll both watch and see what happens. cordially, jf.
Jim,
Too rich for me. I fold.
(But I would have enjoyed it more if you had engeged me on the issues rather than the predictions.)
Joe
Hi Joe,
I am a great believer in the principle that when people have basically different instincts or predictions about the future, it’s useful to make a bet! The classic case here was Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon placing a bet about future resource shortages. Twenty years ago Ehrlich thought all resources everywhere were about to be used up. Julian Simon (who died a year or two ago – a very interesting man) thought that huge new discoveries were about to be made. So they bet on the future prices of copper, oil, tungsten, etc. The prices fell, as Simon predicted, and he won the large bet.
So how about the same principle applied to your assessment that what is going on is illegal “bait and switch” tactics and that therefore there will be legal action against Cirrus:
I just think that it’s inevitable that someone will do it out of frustration, or that maybe even some ambitious Assistant DA might take notice.<
I will bet an enormous sum that no one would win such a suit; I’ll bet nearly as much that no DA will file such a suit; and I’ll bet nearly as much as that that no position holder will file it. [Heisenberg effect waiver: if anyone is aware of our bet and then files a suit for reasons influenced by it, that doesn’t count.] So how about this:
- If within the next two years, some SR20 position holder wins a suit against Cirrus because of its current emphasis on 22 production, I will buy you 100 tanks of gas for your plane. If no one wins such a suit, you will buy me 50 tanks. See, I’m giving you odds! Deal?
- If a DA files an action against Cirrus for its SR20/22 production policies in the next year, I will buy you 50 tanksfull of gas. If no DA files such an action in the next year, you will buy me 50 tanks. Deal?
- If some SR20 position holder independently (ie, not related to knowledge of this bet) files suit in the next year, I will buy you 50 tanks. If there is no such a suit, you will buy me 100 tanks. You’re giving me odds in this case, since this is “inevitable.”
Let me know if you’re interested! Otherwise, we’ll both watch and see what happens. cordially, jf.
Jim,
Too rich for me. I fold.
(But I would have enjoyed it more if you had engeged me on the issues rather than the predictions.)
Joe
Joe! Trying my best! Donnez moi un break, as our friends in France would say! (Again, for clarity, – this is all in genial tone.)
My first response to you was about, ummm, “issues” – I was arguing why, in my view, a case against Cirrus would not be justified. To which you replied: Well, it IS going to happen. To which I said: I don’t think so, and I’ll make a bet!
To sneak back into the mire of legalism, breach of contract requires violation of what is explicitly stated (or distinctly if implicitly promised) in the contract itself. Did your contract with Cirrus say that if they didn’t deliver on the target date, they’d give you back the money with interest, or compensate you for frustrated hopes in some way? Mine sure didn’t. It said that a number of things would apply if they didn’t meet that date: I wouldn’t have to make further progress payments, the CPI clock would stop running, etc.
Again, to sue them for breach, you have to show that they violated a promise they made as part of the deal. You could argue, if you want, that their decision to shift to 22 production constitutes such a breach. I am simply saying (Issues Mode: ON) that I do not believe this to be a powerful argument. CRUCIAL QUESTION: what EXACTLY is the part of the contract Cirrus has violated? Legal actions are, well, legalistic, and the burden is on the plaintiff to show EXACTLY what promise the company broke. It can’t just be, “I’ve had to wait too long for my plane!”
(Issues Mode: STILL ON). That is why I said it’s a COMMERCIAL matter, not a LEGAL one. Cirrus made a strategic decision, knowing that it would lose some customer goodwill. To say that a policy makes some customers angry is not the same as saying (a) that it’s illegal or actionable or (b) that it’s a mistake. It could be a mistake, but that’s for the market to sort out – how many people Cirrus pisses off, versus whatever benefits the 22 emphasis brings.
And if you come back saying, “well somebody’s still going to sue,” then I’m going to go back into “Bet” mode – let me know if you’re interested at 1/100th the previous level.
(Issues Mode: OFF. Genial Mode: CONTINUING)
Jim,
Too rich for me. I fold.
(But I would have enjoyed it more if you had engeged me on the issues rather than the predictions.)
Joe
Joe! Trying my best!
My first response to you was about, ummm, “issues” – I was arguing why, in my view, a case against Cirrus would not be justified. To which you replied: Well, it IS going to happen. To which I said: I don’t think so, and I’ll make a bet!
To sneak back into the mire of legalism, breach of contract requires violation of what is explicitly stated (or distinctly if implicitly promised) in the contract itself. Did your contract with Cirrus say that if they didn’t deliver on the target date, they’d give you back the money with interest, or compensate you for frustrated hopes in some way? Mine sure didn’t. It said that a number of things would apply if they didn’t meet that date: I wouldn’t have to make further progress payments, the CPI clock would stop running, etc.
Again, to sue them for breach, you have to show that they violated a promise they made as part of the deal. You could argue, if you want, that their decision to shift to 22 production constitutes such a breach. I am simply saying (Issues Mode: ON) that I do not believe this to be a powerful argument. CRUCIAL QUESTION: what EXACTLY is the part of the contract Cirrus has violated? Legal actions are, well, legalistic, and the burden is on the plaintiff to show EXACTLY what promise the company broke. It can’t just be, “I’ve had to wait too long for my plane!”
(Issues Mode: STILL ON). That is why I said it’s a COMMERCIAL matter, not a LEGAL one. Cirrus made a strategic decision, knowing that it would lose some customer goodwill. To say that a policy makes some customers angry is not the same as saying (a) that it’s illegal or actionable or (b) that it’s a mistake. It could be a mistake, but that’s for the market to sort out – how many people Cirrus pisses off, versus whatever benefits the 22 emphasis brings.
And if you come back saying, “well somebody’s still going to sue,” then I’m going to go back into “Bet” mode – let me know if you’re interested at 1/100th the previous level.
(Issues Mode: OFF. Genial Mode: CONTINUING)
WOW, you guys are good. I almost hate to intrude on your discord.
Point (A) The back of my contract states that “dispute shall be decided by an Arbitrator under the rules of the American Arbitration Association” not in a traditional courtroom. There is a difference.
Point (B) As noted above, the COMMERCIAL matter should make my point (A) a moot point. There is the court of public opinion. In this day of e-mail and forums like this, information is exchanged with a click. This could hurt the company faster than any lawsuit, especially for product aquired with emotion envolved. An emotional purchaser can be a fickle purchaser.
As a side note, I have often been amazed at our human nature to accept through faith the assurances that those who supply us with goods and services do so in our best interests. Have you ever heard the phrase “well your the doctor” i.e. do as you see fit. Another example, “my attorney is the best”. Maybe it goes to brand loyaly to an extent. Regardless, if this faith is ever breached you have a real fire breathing monster on your hands.
Mike