Boat Held Hostage By Marine Transport Company

[justwaiting]

Just asking, anyone know how the information held CDLIS can be accessed, might be interesting .....

"Mandated by the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act 1986 (CMVSA), CDLIS helps control issuance of a Commercial driver's license (CDL) and the withdrawal of a commercial driver by the CDLIS jurisdictions (the 50 U.S. States and the District of Columbia). The purpose of CDLIS is to keep a record of each driver nationwide and help ensure only one driver license and one record for each driver and to enable authorized users to check whether a driver is withdrawn, through the cooperative exchange of commercial driver information between the CDLIS jurisdictions."

Commercial Driver's License Information System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Benjmin]

+1 for the HELLS ANGELS!
$1,500 donation can make miracles happen...
Use your imagination.............

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Thanks for the reminder of that ... I guess not many sensible people will be using his business or advice (transport or legal).

Most people just laugh and inital the clause,they have no intent on suing me ,but if someone dosnt sign it I tell them to leave as they would be the first to do so..

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by witzgall

It seems you are assuming that the trucker is only only holding the boat for ransom, but that is an assumption, he could have dumped it somewhere never to be seen again, and is only trying to extort more $$$.

Grifters are out there. Some cruising friends of ours just had somebody try to steal their boat for sale with forged cashiers checks. They and the broker smelled a rat, and called the bank (forgery) and then the police (wanted in five states).

A sting operation ensued, and they are now behind bars, a man and two male teenagers. This just happened five days ago in North Carolina!

They should be in jail they commited a crime,from reading this thread the truck driver has not...

[MysticGringo]

Tropicalescape... I would love to transport a boat for you. I'll even put the $50k clause in there so you can't sue me when I don't deliver it.

I would doubt your $50k clause has ever been tested, because I would bet it would be ignored. Judges can change the "contract" to what is reasonable in a court room... it's happened to me. I bought a house with renters in it, took the lease they had and reproduced it with my name, all signed it. Had to take them to court, the judge decided what was being charged as late fees wasn't fair (my first tenants, and I just copied exactly the previous lease), and changed the amount they owed me. Waivers don't protect from your nor your employees negligence.

I would bet this guys career is coming to a close. His reputation is surely trashed. Google his company and this topic's title will pop up, and you won't need to read it to decide to choose someone else.

I can't imagine the level of frustration both customers of this guy must feel right now. Dansante, please keep us informed about your mast, and what you're able too about the boat.

If the driver is reading this and is able to put up a good defense, why wouldn't he, if not only to clear his name? Probably because he knows he's in the wrong... I would defend my company and my reputation, but I don't conduct my business in a shady manner.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by MysticGringo

Tropicalescape... I would love to transport a boat for you. I'll even put the $50k clause in there so you can't sue me when I don't deliver it.

I would doubt your $50k clause has ever been tested, because I would bet it would be ignored. Judges can change the "contract" to what is reasonable in a court room... it's happened to me. I bought a house with renters in it, took the lease they had and reproduced it with my name, all signed it. Had to take them to court, the judge decided what was being charged as late fees wasn't fair (my first tenants, and I just copied exactly the previous lease), and changed the amount they owed me. Waivers don't protect from your nor your employees negligence.

I would bet this guys career is coming to a close. His reputation is surely trashed. Google his company and this topic's title will pop up, and you won't need to read it to decide to choose someone else.

I can't imagine the level of frustration both customers of this guy must feel right now. Dansante, please keep us informed about your mast, and what you're able too about the boat.

If the driver is reading this and is able to put up a good defense, why wouldn't he, if not only to clear his name? Probably because he knows he's in the wrong... I would defend my company and my reputation, but I don't conduct my business in a shady manner.

No one has ever tried to sue us,This wavier was written by a corp. Lawer in NY and we left no stone un-turned ,it cost $10,000 and if anyone was to try to sue me the court would see that no one twisted their arm and that they signed of ther own valition.....It also covers snake bites,Rocks in the LZ,mad wives and pot holes, its just there to cover the bases and my ass...If the op would have had something as in depth as this he could feel a little better about going to court(more money)knowing he had something so strong to fall back on rather than a handshake...

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

No one has ever tried to sue us,This wavier was written by a corp. Lawer in NY and we left no stone un-turned ,it cost $10,000
SNIP

All that means is that someone would have to pay a lawyer $US11,000 to break the contract.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Just because part of a contract is not enforced does not always mean the entire contract is not enforced. Contract law is a huge part of the US legal system (and what is taught in law school). As a rule a large US company will have a top notch lawyer who specializes in contract law and often specializes in how to break part of a contract while keeping another part of the contract.

In real estate there were often covenants about not selling property to specific groups (like Jews or blacks). Of course trying to enforce this type of thing would go no where in the courts. Without seeing the wording of tropical's $US50k thing it is hard to say what would happen. If the wording is along the lines of "if you sue me and you lose you have to pay me an extra $US50k because you are a bozo" the courts might well go along with it. If it simply said any suit can not proceed until you pay me $US50k it would not survive pre trial.

I agree. Anyway, I have got to a point now where I have read so much illogical nonsense from a certain member here, that I am not going to bother trying to join in a debate with that member any further. Fortunately, the majority of comments made regarding this thread are logical and what one would expect of the average decent person to be. Like everyone her I really hope our fellow members get to a resolution asap without incurring any further loss or costs.

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Quite the contre, the judge looks at the 12 page(wavier) contract and after seeing that I gave this person every excuse and out not to strap this engine on his back and run across the ground until airborne he does it anyway,well you get the picture...

When you read what you wrote, does it make sense to you? I have NO IDEA what you are trying say.

If you had had a lawsuit where a judge enforced your $50k clause, it would be public record. So what's the name of the case?

[minaret]

Originally Posted by xymotic

When you read what you wrote, does it make sense to you? I have NO IDEA what you are trying say.

If you had had a lawsuit where a judge enforced your $50k clause, it would be public record. So what's the name of the case?

Oh, you legal types. Always wanting to deal in reality with proof. It's so much easier if we all just make stuff up...


I've had a few people try to make me sign a contract with a similar BS clause. I have always turned them away, even though I don't think there's any way it would hold up in court. All of them have seemed really kooky to me, almost invariably nut-jobs of one sort or another. One of them came back after having problems with another outfit and begged us to take him without any wierd paperwork. We just laughed and sent him on his way. People who are already thinking this way are the real litigious sorts. Much more comfortable with the handshake crowd. The full extent of our contract is about 1 paragraph at the bottom of the estimate. Never ever had a problem, in many years of very high end jobs and some astronomically huge bills. It helps when ALL of your clients leave happy...

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by minaret

Oh, you legal types. Always wanting to deal in reality with proof. It's so much easier if we all just make stuff up...


I've had a few people try to make me sign a contract with a similar BS clause. I have always turned them away, even though I don't think there's any way it would hold up in court. All of them have seemed really kooky to me, almost invariably nut-jobs of one sort or another. One of them came back after having problems with another outfit and begged us to take him without any wierd paperwork. We just laughed and sent him on his way. People who are already thinking this way are the real litigious sorts. Much more comfortable with the handshake crowd. The full extent of our contract is about 1 paragraph at the bottom of the estimate. Never ever had a problem, in many years of very high end jobs and some astronomically huge bills. It helps when ALL of your clients leave happy...

Minaret, you appear to be the sort of sensible person I would rather deal with. You echo my thoughts on anyone trying to set up a dubious contract in this way.

[FlyMeAway]

I've been reading this thread with much interest over the past few weeks. Please throw my hat in with the OP -- this is a terrible thing, seems at the very minimum to be conversion, and is (almost) certainly moving into the realm of criminal law. DOT is probably the right way to proceed but, contrary to what others have stated, local and Federal law enforcement are also likely to help. Here's why: if the load is still on the road, hooked up to the rig, or in certain other circumstances, this is definitely a DOT issue. But if the load is sitting in a parking lot somewhere, or in a warehouse, or has otherwise been offloaded, DOT is less likely to get involved. The Feds are somewhat preoccupied these days with that whole terrorism thing (it's a good time to be an organized criminal). If you can identify where the boat is located, state/local PD -- with the aid of experienced local counsel; you're going to have to hire an attorney nearby, preferably one with both shipping and criminal experience -- may be great in helping out.

I say this as a recovering corporate lawyer who has passed the bar in New York and graduated, with honors, from an Ivy League law school.

Which brings me to another point. Tropic, your "pay me $50,000 to sue me" is so unbelievably unenforceable so as to be laughable -- there was actually a case about this in my contracts textbook, used as an example of a contracts clause that was unenforceable. Your New York attorney either a) added the clause because he thought it would mollify you and scare ignorant people into not suing you (even though it has no legal effect); b) was completely incompetent; or c) was committing malpractice and having a good laugh at your expense. (a) and (c) are ethnically dubious. I'd actually like to know who your lawyer was (PM me if you don't mind) because this is so egregious that there's a decent argument that I'm supposed to report him to the state bar for an ethics violation. I'm actually serious here. That's how bad that is.

Remember: you can sign a contract to sell yourself into slavery. Without anybody twisting your arm. Doesn't mean that it is enforceable.

[Bluewaters2812]

...
Which brings me to another point. Tropic, your "pay me $50,000 to sue me" is so unbelievably unenforceable so as to be laughable -- there was actually a case about this in my contracts textbook, used as an example of a contracts clause that was unenforceable. Your New York attorney either a) added the clause because he thought it would mollify you and scare ignorant people into not suing you (even though it has no legal effect); b) was completely incompetent; or c) was committing malpractice and having a good laugh at your expense. (a) and (c) are ethnically dubious. I'd actually like to know who your lawyer was (PM me if you don't mind) because this is so egregious that there's a decent argument that I'm supposed to report him to the state bar for an ethics violation. I'm actually serious here. That's how bad that is.

These are the exact thoughts I had in mind when I posted previously about this "clause". I have given up on his lack of logic anyhow let alone any common sense. I will watch this thread to hopefully hear some good news that they have caught up with their property.

[Resolute_ZS]

I'm seriously considering blocking a certain member here, and I've just been on the forums for less than a week. It's sad how one person's comments can provide such negativity in an otherwise productive and supportive thread.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by Resolute_ZS

I'm seriously considering blocking a certain member here, and I've just been on the forums for less than a week. It's sad how one person's comments can provide such negativity in an otherwise productive and supportive thread.

I understand how you feel. I haven't been here for a ton of months but fortunately, for the most part the advice and cameraderie is excellent. It takes all types to make a world and some we can do without. Should I know who that member is lol?