Border Model's Statement Regarding Lancaster Legal Issues

[Jan_G]

while it seems that Border avoided Wingnut Wings name completly in their communication, many sellers are still using it within preorders to boost interest

[Dave Williams]

I believe that Border is being entirely truthful about the fact of how they got the molds and what they had to do to finish and get the kit ready to market.  The real legal question here is whether they had the legal right to buy the molds, or whether the company who had the molds had the legal right to sell them.  Also, regarding WNW being the bad guy in this situation, at this point it’s not WNW the company we knew a few years ago.  It’s Peter Jackson himself doing this, who’s basically all that’s left of WNW.

[VMA131Marine]

3 hours ago, GrahamF said:

I think Border models are on dodgy ground, the design work already done has a cost value, which 'could' be more than the moulds themselves, the fact that the moulds haven't been paid for doesn't mean you can arbitrarily start producing the kit as a financial settlement. Only with the agreement of WNW themselves.

The molds are a tangible asset, separate from the IP, which WnW did not own because they violated the terms of their contract with the mold manufacturer. How else is the mold maker supposed to recover their costs than by selling on the, apparently, abandoned molds. 

[mozart]

I was sitting on the fence before about whether to buy the Lanc or not, but this has decided me, a definite Yes from me, plus aircrew. (and Hannants still list it, £557.99 including 10% discount on back order). 

Edited November 5, 2021 by mozart

[BiggTim]

I don't even want one of these kits, but I am curious to see how this turns out.

[Dave Williams]

4 minutes ago, Radub said:

 

B. I live in Ireland, where transfer of property involves a legal instrument called "conveyancing" which has to be carried out by a property solicitor. I hired a solicitor to do the conveyancing on my house. No regrets. Wikipedia says that conveyancing exists in the US as well. 

Radu 

 

While there are legal documents that have to be signed when buying and selling a house in the US, that’s not the same as saying a lawyer has to be involved in every transaction.  Usually a title company handles all of the paperwork, and there are usually standard forms with just the specifics filled in. Likely a lawyer was involved in developing the language used in the standard form, but that’s all.

[cbk57]

This is interesting, however for me if Peter Jackson took care of his business and his employees this would not be happening, so I don:t sympathize or empathize with him.  He comes across to me as a spoiled now rich child.  On the other hand I don:t really care about border models either, I hope the people that want a Lancaster get one, it would be nice if the investors get taken care of here including Border but other than watching with interest, not my problem.

[cbk57]

I just looked, Andy’s HHQ seems to have taken the Lancaster down and deleted it.  Sorry to say but this is about to get interesting although this “.    “ show may take a while to play out.  Grab your popcorn.

[wunwinglow]

This story would make a good film.....

 

[Kagemusha]

4 minutes ago, wunwinglow said:

This story would make a good film.....

 

 

I wonder which part Tom Cruise would play..?

[D.B. Andrus]

2 minutes ago, Kagemusha said:

 

I wonder which part Tom Cruise would play..?

 

A clapped out Merlin....?

[Radub]

Just now, Jennings Heilig said:

 

I understand that you live in Ireland, but the fact remains that lawyers are not a required (and often not wanted) part of such business transactions, period.  They just aren't.  Whether in real estate transactions or in business transactions.  Lawyers simply are not always or compulsorily involved everywhere in the world.

 

 

I hired a lawyer when I bought my house because that is what people do here. All easy, affordable and with no regrets.

I truly hope you understand that there is a whole world outside the borders of the US where people do things differently. Some of us dare to speak different languages, have different customs and even have different legal systems. It is funny that in a thread that is basically about legal issues across borders you are unable to grasp the concept.

Radu 

 

[Kenneth]

 

1) If there are any intellectual property rights involved here, then it can only be trademarks/designs or patents, which would have had to be applied for and granted in all of the countries, where legal action is threatened. This obviously includes China, where litigation is notoriously difficult, as already mentioned. Moreover, I only see potential for such IP rights in the design/engineering of the kit as such, or in the mould as such. Do any model kit designers/manufacturers do this? In all the jurisdictions where they want to sell their models?

 

2) „Automatic“ IP rights, without an active application and processing, in my understanding only applies to artistic/literature work, such as books, under the Berne Convention. Even if it would apply to a Lancaster as a 3D-object, then the rights would belong to Avro‘s successors. It would definitely never apply to the moulds.

 

3) As also mentioned earlier, the core of this dispute will lie in the wording of the contract with the mold manufacturer. Whatever design work went into designing the kit only has a bearing on the conflict, if it is reflected correspondingly in that contract. If the contract was signed with legal effect in China, well, then good luck in going to court there…

 

4) Modellbau König in Germany still has it on their website.

[cbk57]

The notion of “conveyancing” does not apply it is a somewhat obsolete term in the U.S. as it largely relates to real property and is not really pertinent to how land title in most of the U.S. is handled today.  Much more complicated than that but lets just say it is not pertinent to this conversation as plastic model molds are personal property, in the U.S. would fall under personal property laws.  American law and courts would not be sympathetic to a party that ordered a product require it custom tooling and the party then not paying for the tooling but asserting rights after the fact having still never paid or offered to pay for the same tooling.  I assume though that what Border is sayings is fact, that tooling was never paid for.

[Kagemusha]

OK, can we please leave the personal out of the discussion, otherwise the thread's going to have to go into a holding position.