Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wsquare

Active Member
Not sure if this idea is possible, but it seems like something to consider. Step 1) Pay the added costs to keep existing build project "in play". Step 2) File a claim describing why one feels that they have a claim.
This approach would allow folks to stay with their build plans, and keep options open to recover some of their money based on future court findings.
If there is some language associated with the payment of additional funds, that implies that by paying the added funds - said person "will not have a claim", then go ahead and file a claim anyway. Near as I can tell, anythings goes in courts these days, and there are no limits to making claims.
Just an idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (thus, no legal advise implied).
 
I'm not a lawyer, but I would assume that Van's attorneys would show that the order you're saying you have a claim on also has a signed statement from you from an earlier date saying you won't have any claims against this order in the future. I would think that would be a pretty straightforward way to get a judgement against your claim, but who knows in courts these days.
 
Are asking if it's possible to accept the modified contract that Vans proposes for you AND file a claim? Or are you asking if it's possible to accept a modified contract on say a finish kit and file a loss of value claim on a separate kit such as QB wings affected by LCP?
 
This idea is quite simple. Doesn't matter what contract or modified contract one signs. The main point is that if one wants to continue their build project and dream, then do what it takes, sign what is needed, and pay what's demanded. Then for Step 2) file a claim, or claims, describing why one feels they have a claim, or claims, including the likely inclusion of a claim that the signature(s) placed on the submitted documents were placed on said document(s) "under a condition of duress". Virtually any document signed under a "condition of duress" has the potential to gain the attention of the court(s). And these days, it seems as though a person can make a claim for anything. Witness the signed releases for all kinds of "risky" activities, such as jumping out of a perfectly good airplane to learn how about sky diving. Everyone need to sign a release, but at the same time it is generally recognized that if something happens, a court case will follow, even with the service provider holding a "release". With probable settlement in favor of the claimant.
Just an idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (hence no legal advice implied).
 
Please don’t get legal advice from the internet

The information below is of course legal advice, and it also is wildly, shockingly wrong in numerous important ways.

wsquare said:
This idea is quite simple. Doesn't matter what contract or modified contract one signs. The main point is that if one wants to continue their build project and dream, then do what it takes, sign what is needed, and pay what's demanded. Then for Step 2) file a claim, or claims, describing why one feels they have a claim, or claims, including the likely inclusion of a claim that the signature(s) placed on the submitted documents were placed on said document(s) "under a condition of duress". Virtually any document signed under a "condition of duress" has the potential to gain the attention of the court(s). And these days, it seems as though a person can make a claim for anything. Witness the signed releases for all kinds of "risky" activities, such as jumping out of a perfectly good airplane to learn how about sky diving. Everyone need to sign a release, but at the same time it is generally recognized that if something happens, a court case will follow, even with the service provider holding a "release". With probable settlement in favor of the claimant.
Just an idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (hence no legal advice implied).
Click to expand...
 
Everyone does what they need to protect their interests

Easy to make a statement saying something is wrong. But seems important to provide documentation as to why something is wrong. It seems that the legal system is a Wild West situation, and anybody can file any claim they want. A claim that includes "signature under duress" seems realistic, based on what I'm reading about the Vans situation (ie, it is pretty clear there is a lot of "duress" about what is happening). When one is placed between "a rock and a hard place", there is generally duress. Of course, if a person is more than happy to sign, and pay added funds, then said person would have no "under duress" claim, although they may have claims for other reasons.
Just a common sense idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (thus no legal advise implied)
 
wsquare said:
Not sure if this idea is possible, but it seems like something to consider. Step 1) Pay the added costs to keep existing build project "in play". Step 2) File a claim describing why one feels that they have a claim.
This approach would allow folks to stay with their build plans, and keep options open to recover some of their money based on future court findings.
If there is some language associated with the payment of additional funds, that implies that by paying the added funds - said person "will not have a claim", then go ahead and file a claim anyway. Near as I can tell, anythings goes in courts these days, and there are no limits to making claims.
Just an idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (thus, no legal advise implied).
Click to expand...

Do ya think that maybe Vans has legal folks following this site??

I suspect they may have a lot of fun with your implied intent.

But then, I am (thankfully) not a lawyer.
 
Who cares?

Personally don’t care who reads this site and posts. Maybe the SCOTUS will also get some ideas. Seems one of the motivations for this thread is to openly discuss ideas and perspectives. Eventually, there will be no secrets. Better sooner, than later.
Just a common sense idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (thus no legal advise implied)
 
A case filed under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is frequently referred to as a "reorganization" bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy implies losses for all that are involved in the reorganization.

To prove you were under duress you must establish that you agreed to a contract because of a threat of illegitimate pressure and would not have signed the contract if the threat did not exist.

What is Illegitimate Pressure?
Where pressure results from a threat, the nature and circumstances of the threat will determine whether the pressure was legitimate or illegitimate. If the threat is unlawful, that will be an example of illegitimate pressure.

Good luck
 
Gotta keep all option open.

Good points. Conceptually agree. Here, it would seem the nature of the "duress" under consideration is expressed as a threat of illegitimate pressure. Could it be interpreted as psychologically induced pressure to conform to the new demands, or risk losing hard earned money? Where part of the psychologically induced pressure is due to family financial risk, due to uncertainty about where all this is going, and if a new payment will also disappear. For some, this psychologically induced pressure may well be interpreted as a threat to their financial health and well-being. It is unlikely anyone impacted by this situation would sign a new contract is said threat did not exist (thus meeting part of the logic in support of the duress claim). The answers always stem from the questions, and the interpretation of the question, and subsequent interpretation of answer. As we all know, from a well known quote during a high profile legal proceeding -- "Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is." As I always say when flying, "gotta keep ALL options open...".
Just a common sense idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (thus no legal advice implied).
 
wsquare said:
Personally don’t care who reads this site and posts. Maybe the SCOTUS will also get some ideas. Seems one of the motivations for this thread is to openly discuss ideas and perspectives. Eventually, there will be no secrets. Better sooner, than later.
Just a common sense idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (thus no legal advise implied)
Click to expand...

Seriously? Now you want to guess that perhaps SCOTUS will ultimately get involved in the Ch 11 case of a $50M/year business?

Good thing you're not really a lawyer, I guess.
 
Sarcasm

Guess some small hint of sarcasm should have been included when SCOTUS was mentioned in jest, but didn't think it necessary since we are all an educated bunch. However, now that it has been pointed out, here is a bit of added information on SCOTUS as related to bankruptcy cases - "On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases." Citation can be provided on request, or just google the phrase. Interestingly, one of the four cases involves the simple sale of a residential property - much less than $50M dollars at stake with Vans. For the SCOTUS, it's not about the amount of money at stake, it's about justice.
Just a common sense idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (thus no legal advice implied).
 
wsquare said:
For the SCOTUS, it's not about the amount of money at stake, it's about justice.
Just a common sense idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (thus no legal advice implied).
Click to expand...

the supreme court pretty much only takes on cases where serious judicial mistakes have been made or more commonly where they feel that a new precedence needs to be set or at least reconsidered, as that is their primary role in contemporary times, where precedence rules the lower courts. It has nothing to do with justice in general, as that is carried out in the lower courts.
 
Last edited:
Returning to original concept

Great. How about we return to the original idea, and consider it further. A common sense suggestion for a two step process was noted. Step 1) If one is inclined, sign necessary paperwork, and pay additional expenses, above and beyond what was originally expected, based on prior agreement(s). Keep track of any added costs that were added as a result of BK. Step 2) File a claim, for the amount of the additional funds paid, as noted in Step 1. With said claim based an any claim, or claims, that may pertain to ones individual situation. One such claim, that may be among multiple other claims, held within the "master claim", may be that the paperwork signed (and by extension the additional funds paid) in Step 1 were completed under duress. This idea would keep all options open, and let the court decide on the merits of a persons claim, which is built upon a series of "sub-claims".
Now to the broader issue of Vans. I am hoping for the best for Vans. I have had the pleasure of sitting next to Mr. Van (my way of addressing Mr. VanGrunsven) at a luncheon during an aviation event a handful of years ago. Wonderful time, great conversation, and clearly a passion for aviation. A few years later, I trekked to AirVenture with a question on my plane, located the Vans display, and asked my question. I was referred to Mr. Van, and he promptly took me outside the tent, to a display aircraft like mine, we both got down on our backs, in the grass, under the airplane, and he proceeded to answer my question. WOW! I never would have expected that. And we had fun while laying in the grass, under the plane in the shade, joking about the situation we found ourselves in, and the nature of my question. Again, nothing but respect and best wishes for Vans (and Mr Van).
However, at this time, each customer is not dealing with Mr. Van. Each customer involved in this situation is dealing with attorneys, that have only one mission in mind. To get paid. If there wasn't a paycheck for them, they wouldn't be allocating their time to this issue. The common sense idea that has been suggested, is a possible approach to keep track of how much additional cost has been incurred, and to ask the court for relief, based on claims presented. Thereby keeping all options open...
Just a common sense idea from a non-attorney spokesperson (thus no legal advice implied).
 
Many people reading this forum have significant financial resources at play in this bankruptcy and need to make difficult and well-informed decisions. For those people, believe me when I say that this legal advice remains — in the immortal words of Olson Johnson describing the speech of Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles — “authentic frontier gibberish.” Please consult with a knowledgeable attorney rather than taking legal advice off the internet from people who… claim they aren’t offering legal advice.

wsquare said:
Great. How about we return to the original idea, and consider it further. A common sense suggestion for a two step process was noted. Step 1) If one is inclined, sign necessary paperwork, and pay additional expenses, above and beyond what was originally expected, based on prior agreement(s). Keep track of any added costs that were added as a result of BK. Step 2) File a claim, for the amount of the additional funds paid, as noted in Step 1. With said claim based an any claim, or claims, that may pertain to ones individual situation. One such claim, that may be among multiple other claims, held within the "master claim", may be that the paperwork signed (and by extension the additional funds paid) in Step 1 were completed under duress. This idea would keep all options open, and let the court decide on the merits of a persons claim, which is built upon a series of "sub-claims".
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.