Turnpike...Ned,

Great dialogue, an exapmle of how a misunderstanding can be corrected without the trashing....GOOD ONE!

It would seem to me that what determines who is entitled to what is determined by the parties and a licensing agreement. Its that simple.

If it were that simple, the whole mess wouldn't be in court.

Evan, being a lawyer, made you could give us a clue how the licensing agreement could possibly be so badly interpreted as to give Shelby the rights to the SAAC registry? Not to mention the personal data that it is built upon (private phone numbers, address', etc.). Shelby wants that to.

If Shelby were granted the personal data that comprises the registry, stand by for an on slaught of law suits by individuals whose private information was just handed over to another corporation without individual consent.

Unfortunately, the reality when human emotions, egos, personal desires/satisfaction, mis-trust, mutual dislike by the parties etc., etc., are involved, either real or perceived, the logical solution does not always prevail, but who decides and defines what the logical solution will be ?

Up to this point, seems the only ones benefitting are those collecting the on going legal fees . Do not know how the option is decided, but will the parties elect to have the case, if it gets that far, decided by a judge or a jury ?

SAAC's appeal for donations to their legal defense fund, was the amount collected and number of donators published ?

CSI's Public Relations firm has not issued any news updates since Dec 7, 2007.

1. No. I cannot imagine SAAC wanting C$ to know how big the war chest is. They are already in an uphill fight and do not need to provide information to their adversary in this. The donors may very well wish to be anonymous...and some may be supporting both sides to save face/friends whichever way the wind blows. :rolleyes:

2. Smart. Somebody is listening to their legal beagles. Everything either side says could re-appear in court to be twisted or applied to God-Only-Knows what use. Best to 'save it for the judge'. :CRY:

What suck about this
 

This whole thing would be so easy to resolve. The SAAC was setup for vintage Cobras and Mustangs. Let them continue on with their work.

Team Shelby was setup for new Ford products. I have no proof but I assume that the SAAC wants nothing to do with them.

Shelby should let HIS FOLLOWERS choose where they want to go. :CRY:

I was told SAAC wouldn't tell ANYBODY I donated to their legal fund, so it's our little secret (and don't tell anyone). :D

:confused:

It seems to me that I recall when Shelby first started his Las Vegas plant and got nailed on the continuation Cobra thing that he made a remark along the lines that he wasn't that interested in building Cobras anyway and that the Series 1 cars were going to be his main thing. He didn't want any of the responsibility of building a turn key Cobra and they were to be just a kind of side line to the Series 1 project. I don't notice any big rush to build Series 1 replicas.
Everyone except the legal teams is going to lose on this mess no matter how it turns out. If Shelby wins, will he honor the orders for the new Cobra Registry or just keep the money already paid in for them and not send them out?
Why can't the two sides just agree to let the SAAC continue with the originals as it has since Shelby left for Africa for his 10 year sulk and didn't want anything to do with the cars, and the new SAI/Team Shelby keep all records and registry of the new cars he is making?

Ron :confused:

If the lawsuits remain...it will take years to resolve.

The present work-in-progress new Registry will ship by the summer.

HIQ,

Actually SAAC does have a registry for new Ford products; they are compiling info on GT's, Shelby Mustangs, Hertz cars, etc.

- Dan

DOOHHHH!

Did you mean to say that OUT LOUD?

:LOL:

Oinie: I would love to read the Licensing agreement. Is it avaiable for the public to read or is it protected by a confidentiality agreement?

Ned: Its in court because, as I understand, one side is saying the other breached the licensing agreement and its not being renewed for that reason. The other side says no we didn't breach it and CS is not entitled to what he seeks.

What did the licensing agreement say? Was there a failure to comply? Was there a right to renew if there was compliance. What rights do each have on termination of the agreement?

Without reading the licensing agreement I can't even begin to say who is right legally. I then need the facts upon which the claims are based on both sides and then decide which are the facts that I would find as having happened then apply the agreement and the law to those facts.

Polls as to whose side your are on are meaningless. I already said if you want to be heard start a petition as to what the enthusiast wants to see happen. This may pressure both sides.

But then again what do I know....:rolleyes:

You can read the pertinent aspect of the license agreement here:
http://www.shelbylicensing.com/press.htm

I've heard rumors that since the suit was filed the full document is currently available 'some where' on the web as it is now considered a public document? Otherwise, yeah, it would fall under a 'need to know basis'.

But what is published at Shelby Licensing is enough to see the primary argument. Shelby wants detailed records of sales, to determine their cut I would think. Products for sale must be pre-approved. Pretty typical and what you would expect to see for such a contract (from Ford or GM or whoever). EITHER side can withdraw at any time by simply telling the other side within a certain time frame within the year.

SAAC's position, relative to the actual license to SELL Shelby 'stuff' is that the license was obtained through 'fraud' some years ago. I DO NOT speak for SAAC, just passing on the opinions/observations I've made along the way. I don't see anything in the agreement that gives Shelby the right to the registry and certainly no right to acquire/use the SAAC name. Nor does the license agreement address the return of Shelbys personal 'stuff' (what ever that is supposed to be).

An interesting question might be: ASSUMING the license is in fact valid (a legal point of dispute) what should/will happen to the various trademarked 'goods' in SAAC's possession (hats, badges, etc.)? I would guess Shelby considers the registry to be part of the SAAC 'stuff' for sale and that is the basis for his legal argument.

In the event the suit was primarily based on the merchandise SAAC has which uses trade-named items owned by Shelby, it would be a snap to resolve: SAAC would return all of it, take a hit for the value of it (which would total no more than roughly $5000) and everyone would walk away. But clearly, there is much more involved, and it has - like most lawsuits - gotten to the point where one or both sides are unwilling or unable to rationally approach the sticking points that drove them apart in the first place. Changing this situation would be an excellent first step towards an acceptable resolution.

Good point Ned, lets not loose sight of the fact that the license agreement is largely a 'red herring' when it comes to the 'real' issues at hand.

(Red Herring)... the formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question. The formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question.

Using Google and the search term :

saac & shelby licensing agreement

EarthLink Search: "saac & shelby licensing agreement"

will return a number of web entries on the subject. A very cursory read indicates much of the same information as posted on this Thread. However, does provide a recap of the various documents/news releases which have been published. Did not find the entire Licensing Agrrement

A new item I had not previously seen, but may have been already posted in a reply. From The MustangNews.com, those in SAAC may be aware of the following. The entry was dated 2-1-08, but the date of the sale in 2007 was not specified

" Ford Motor Company sold the SVT Owners Association to the management of SAAC last year, a move the people at the Glass House might be questioning the wisdom of at this point. "

Oinie: I read whats there. Its bits and pieces of the licensing agreement.

It seems that there was indeed a licensing agreement signed in 1999. How Kopec could say he didn't remember it brings some concern to me.

I can't tell from whats there whether the Registry is covered by the licensing agreement. It may be to the extent it uses logos and trademarks belonging to Shelby as opposed to the information SAAC gathered for publication which seems to be their separate work product and property.

If SAAC signed a licensing agreement they have to honor it. Period.

This doesn't make any effort to put SAAC out of business "right" from an overall point of view (eventhough he may have a right do what he is doing) point of SAAC members and enthusiasts but may make Shelby right in insisting that licensing agreement be complied with.

I think the SAAC argument (contract via fraud) could well apply in this case. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that just because there is a written signed document thats the end of it. Sure, it's an uphill battle against a written vs verbal contract. But the history of Shelby business dealings (not 100% straight up with folks) and the history of the 'UNENFORCED never talked about again license agreement' is an arguable point. Add to that a number of people that would testify as to what they heard, hand shake deals, etc and it becomes an arguable point.

SAAC is guilty of being naive and trusting, when Shelby told them it was no big deal, not to worry, just keeps my lawyers happy I guess they actually believed him! :D And for the next nine years they were right, Shelby did nothing with the license.

Evan, Rick Kopec has never said he doesn't recall signing a license agreement.