Pancakes finished, washed down with the ever present condensed milk.. (Yuck, can you really get used to that taste?)
Here goes the translation of p17 as minty asked for. I apologize for the words not being exact, but I´m not so familiar with legal
phrases even in swedish, much less so in english
. I hope it´s understandable tho.
On P 16 they state the formalities regarding the extent of the proof presented in general cases of this kind, how precise they need to be etc and making the judgment that this case has no valid grounds for making any exceptions from those general demands. They are also making a point that this particular case is about wether or not the swedish consumer purchase
law is applicable, and if the faults presented were in fact present or not at the time of delivery
Then, on p17, they again stress the fact that it may in cases like this require extensive surveys to show evidence of, for example, lack of bonding between the different layers in a boat hull
and then pointing to the owner/possessor being the part in the case that has the best possibilities to do this, as where the seller has very limitied possibilities to do the same. Lowered standards of evidence would therefore make it more difficult for the seller to adress accusations/faults. All this leading up to what already established: The requirements for the strength of the proof can not be lowered in this case.
To show the court that the boat has substantial faults the owners therefore must meet regular standard level of proof, which are set very high. It is not enough that it is more likely than not to have been there from the beginning,
Have the Nordé couple been able to show that there is a lack of bonding/delamination in the hull?
Every person interviewed in this case has been most credible and many of them possess vast expertise on the subject. There is no reason to believe that any of them has given false information, neither knowingly or unknowingly. The court must therefore weigh the parts
credibility against eachother, if meanings differ.
As noted above, under the "EVIDENCE" part, the means and methods to examine the hull has cinsisted of: Tapping on the hull, care samples both from drilling and sawing, ultrasound tests and tensile strength tests.
William Bekking (swe surveyor
my note) has -referring to long experience in this field- tapped the hull with a hammer thus getting convinced there are hollows within the hull.
While Cristoph Rassy and Benny Martinsson (from HR, my note) has done the same, and says this is not the case, the hull is solid. The court finds this method unreliable since several person with great experience can come to so differnet conclusions
And then a lot of bla bla bal leading to the drill core:
The drill core, made by the owner, has been carefully examined by Anders Sjögren who concluded that the surface structure of the parts
indicates bad bonding/poor lamination. Also others WB, RO, EK, KAO and BS (the names of the experts) that have visually examined the core sample supports this conclusion.M Rassy and K Sjöberg claims the opposite. In this context its also worth mentioning that HRs´ B Magnusson and I Spindel claims that they have made thousands of core sample drillings and that it happens that a core spilts in 2 even without delamination/poor bonding.
Aaaah, this gives me a headache... Anyway, you wanted P17.. this is it, plus some of p16 and 18 as well