HEIGHT OF ALL ARROGANCE?

[MileHi480B]

So I bought a new 2011 Robinson R44 Raven II ... AFTER paying IN FULL ... the factory tells me I can't take delivery of my helicopter unless I sign an additional contract.

 

Mmmmm, I found it strange that they would IMPOSE NEW TERMS & CONDITIONS AFTER THE SALE?

 

So what do they want me to sign? An addendum that says I will NOT take passengers unless I take their factory course and that I MUST GET ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE BUYER OF MY SHIP TO AGREE TO THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

 

Look, I understand their concern for safety and have no problem taking the factory safety course. But what right do they have to limite the use of my helicopter until I do? I am licensed and capable of flying passengers safely.

 

I also understand that they would like anyone who buys my ship kn the future to also take their course.

 

BUT TO IMPOSE NEW RULES AFTER THE SALE IS NOT RIGHT! NOT A WORD OF IT UNTIL I PAID!

 

My attorneys advised me NOT to sign any addendum that I do not full intend to adhere to. They said it could negate my insurance and make me NEGLIGENT if anything happens in the future.

 

I told Robinson that I do not intent to sign their addendum and want them to honor their sales contract to me.

 

THEY SAID THEY WILL NOT SELL ME THE HELICOPTER AND THEY ARE GOING TO KEEP $35,000 AS A PENALTY FOR NOT TAKING DELIVERY!

 

Keep in mind, I am NOT refusing to take delivery.

 

THEY ARE REFUSING TO DELIVER IT TO ME.

 

STAY TUNED FOR THE NASTY LAW SUIT.

 

Can you believe this?

 

I heard that Frank thought he was God and all ... but tis is ridiculous!

Edited January 3, 2011 by MileHiR44

[Goldy]

I believe this is the agreement you are speaking of.

 

http://www.robinsonheli.com/documents/r44_addendum.pdf

[The Guardian]

Have heard this one around the campfire: "You didn't buy a helicopter from Frank, you're only leasing it"

Edited January 3, 2011 by The Guardian

[RagMan]

Shouldn't have a problem with this in court. If it wasn't brought up in the paperwork until after the sale was complete and they neglected to mention it to you at all during the sale process, the ruling should be in your favor. Robinson neglected to put forth all of the terms and agreements to the sale before you paid for a product and signed the dotted line. That is Robinsons fault, and the court will see that.

[Darren Hughes]

While I certainly don't agree with their business practices in this case. You could always just do the course and be a better pilot for it. That course has helped drastically reduce the number of fatal accidents in Robbies over the years.

 

While I applaude you for sticking to your guns, I highly recommend doing the course, no matter what the outcome of the lawsuit.

[MileHi480B]

While I certainly don't agree with their business practices in this case. You could always just do the course and be a better pilot for it. That course has helped drastically reduce the number of fatal accidents in Robbies over the years.

 

While I applaude you for sticking to your guns, I highly recommend doing the course, no matter what the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

I totally agree the course is a good idea ... but I can't take it for some time and while I am waiting, I can't take passengers. And even after I take the course, Robinson wants me to get the same assurance from anyone I sell it to.

[klas]

I totally agree the course is a good idea ... but I can't take it for some time and while I am waiting, I can't take passengers. And even after I take the course, Robinson wants me to get the same assurance from anyone I sell it to.

 

Sounds like he is just trying to get his purchasers to be safe flyers, and trying to cover his ass. I personally wouldn't want to fly with anyone flying a Robbie who has not been to the course.

[MileHi480B]

Sounds like he is just trying to get his purchasers to be safe flyers, and trying to cover his ass. I personally wouldn't want to fly with anyone flying a Robbie who has not been to the course.

 

And that is totally your choice. But what do you think about making it a condition AFTER the sale. How would you like that? Then telling you he'll keep your money if you don't sign it?

[gary-mike]

Sounds like BS to me. I can see taking the course, but it should have been brought up early on. That way you could have taken the course prior to delivery, or should I say prior to the planned delivery time. I would also think with over $400K invested and Him saying it is mandatory that the course be offerred free of charge. A voucher should also be offered for the next owner if you end up selling it down the road.

 

Good luck in court and hope you get the bird you paid for soon.

[RotorWeed]

I know it sucks but the fact is the helicopter belongs to Robinson until you take delivery of it. My advice is take the factory training course, and move on with life. The only one who is going to win is the lawyers. Sorry man.

[OneCoqui]

Sounds like illegal business practices conducted by RHC.....

[klas]

And that is totally your choice. But what do you think about making it a condition AFTER the sale. How would you like that? Then telling you he'll keep your money if you don't sign it?

 

I actually knew the existence of the addendum. It has been published on this site before & talked about, so I would have been aware of it beforehand if I ever was lucky enough to be able to purchase one.

[AngelFire_91]

Well seeing as how this:

 

Buyer and RHC agree that the purchase agreement and this Addendum have been the subject of discussion and negotiation and are fully understood by the parties and that the price of the R44 helicopter and the other mutual agreements of the parties set forth in this purchase agreement were arrived at in consideration of the provisions of

this Addendum...

Is the first paragraph, it seems to me like this is something that should have been "discussed" during the purchase agreement conversation.. Sounds like the sales person dropped the ball.

 

However, it also just says that if you operate outside of the "Pilot and use requirements" then you can not sue RHC. It does not say you can't leaglly fly it outside of that, it just says you can not sue RHC if you do.

 

Read:

Buyer further agrees that if for any reason the R44 helicopter is not operated in accordance with requirements of Paragraph 2.(A)through (D) above Buyer will release, hold harmless, defend and indemnify RHC, its shareholders, officers, directors, employees, and suppliers for any and all liability including personal injury, death and/or property damage claims, crossclaims, liens and incidental or consequential damages arising from an accident involving the R44 helicopter specifically including but not limited to any claim or remedy in contract or tort based on legal theories of negligence or strict liability.

 

Unless I'm reading it wrong?

[palmfish]

Pardon my ignorance if I am mistaken (I've never flown a Robinson and don't know that much about them), but I know I can't rent a Robinson because the FAR says I have to have 50 hours in one first. I can't think of any other company or specific machine named in an FAA document like this.

 

How does Frank Robinson manage to do this, and why? Are there any other specific model helicopters that are mentioned/restricted in the FARs by name? It does seem like the "height of arrogance" to me...

[Goldy]

Pardon my ignorance if I am mistaken (I've never flown a Robinson and don't know that much about them), but I know I can't rent a Robinson because the FAR says I have to have 50 hours in one first. I can't think of any other company or specific machine named in an FAA document like this.

 

How does Frank Robinson manage to do this, and why? Are there any other specific model helicopters that are mentioned/restricted in the FARs by name? It does seem like the "height of arrogance" to me...

 

Yes you have to meet the FAR's, specifically the SFAR 73 in regards to R22's and R44's. The R66 does not apply.

 

The FAA only puts this into place when there are a significant number of accidents attributed to the type. Yes, there are other aircraft with similar additional training requirements...but its an airplane, not a helo. Frank had nothing to do with this, he certainly didnt want the FAA telling the world his ships were so hard to fly safely that they required their own rules..and yes, Frank has rarely done things just because "thats the way its always been done before".

[apiaguy]

are you using pathfinder insurance? If so I would estimate you have to agree to the addendum. If you're not using their insurance... I would sign it and take off

[edspilot]

MileHiR44:

 

I agree with you. There was a total break down of the sales department or dealer.

 

As I see it now, you have three options:

 

1: sign it, take the R44 and go flying (no money lost, just some restrictions)

 

2: cancel the delivery, get refund, then sue for the difference you do not get back + costs. (at least you get most of your money back right away)

 

3: Sue now all involved and wait a long time for any money. (not wise)

 

In the end, no it was not right to "spring" the new requirement after-the-fact but, only you can say how to proceed from here.

 

I wish you the best,

 

edspilot

 

 

P.S. I just wish I could have paid for one in full!

[rick1128]

So typical of Frank. First is your machine ready for delivery? What documents do you have on this machine at this point? Personally I would talk with a good lawyer first to see what your options are. Personally I go heavy early.I would show up to take delivery and when they refused to turn over my property, I would file criminal charges of 'theft of use'. And when Frank returned my money minus the 35K, I would file a lien on the aircraft. But that is just me. Another option would be to sign the form, but write 'under duress' under your signature. You have meet their requirement to sign the form, but the statement under your signature just made it worthless. But what ever you do, take at least one unimpeachable witness.

[MileHi480B]

HERE'S THE LATEST ... ROBINSON FEELS THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO KEEP MY DEPOSIT BECAUSE I AM REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR FACTORY RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

I asked them why they "sprung" those recommendations AFTER I bought the helicopter?

 

They said it was their right to impose restrictions.

 

In other words ... it's like buying a car ... and when you go to pick it up the dealer says "By the way ... you are not allowed to drive it over 55 MPH until you take our safety course. And you also have to make sure anyone you sell it to agrees to these conditions."

 

Or like buying a house ... and at closing they tell you "You can;t move in unless you get a certain security system."

 

What's to stop Robinson from simply raising the price? Or requiring an ELT? Or some other equipment?

 

According to Robinson ... they can sell you something, then add conditions to the sale ... then refuse to let you have it unless you comply ... and if you don't like it, they keep your money.

 

Here is the whole point ... if they have special conditions, they ought to be disclosed before you sign the purchase contract, not after.

[Bootcamp]

So I bought a new 2011 Robinson R44 Raven II ... AFTER paying IN FULL ... the factory tells me I can't take delivery of my helicopter unless I sign an additional contract.

 

Can you purchase the helicopter directly from Robinson or do you need to go through a Robinson dealer? Who did you sign the original intent to purchase agreement with: the factory or the dealer?

[AngelFire_91]

In other words ... it's like buying a car ... and when you go to pick it up the dealer says "By the way ... you are not allowed to drive it over 55 MPH until you take our safety course. And you also have to make sure anyone you sell it to agrees to these conditions."

 

Or like buying a house ... and at closing they tell you "You can;t move in unless you get a certain security system."

First, let me throw out that I don't know ANYthing about robbies other then I sat in one on the ground once, I'm merely reading the addendum as Goldy posted.

 

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill here guys.

 

Should it have been talked about before the purchase agreement was signed.. Yes, it says that in the addendum.

 

Would I be upset if this happened to me.. Yes!

 

Would I reconsider buying it from RHC.. Yes!

 

But here is the deal.. The addendum doesn't say you can't legally fly outside of those conditions, it simply releases RHC from liability if you do.

 

It is not like buying a car and then finding out you can't drive over 55. You still can drive over 55, it's just if you crash over 55 and haven't taken their course then you can't sue the car company. However if it was because of a faulty tire you can still sue the tire company, the asphalt layer, the person who planted the tree you hit, etc.. You can even still sue the car company and if you have a good lawyer he'll probably find away around the addendum, specially since it says you should have talked about it before the purchase agreement but the date you signed it was after the purchase date.

 

Here is the whole point ... if they have special conditions, they ought to be disclosed before you sign the purchase contract, not after.

Totally 100% agree! but if you want your helicopter, you're going to have to accept the fact that they screwed up. You can either take it, or fight it in court to get your money back.

 

If it were me... I'd bring the addendum to a lawyer, get his interpretation of it, and then decide. Don't ask over the phone, physically bring it to a lawyer, legal wording is very specific and can't always be conveyed in the right way verbally.

 

While I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one, I have had some law classes, but that does not give me the power to make law decisions. Therefore, take my comments not as fact but as my personal opinion as a common proletariat citizen. lol!

[NorCalHeliKid]

Basically, the contract states, "This helicopter is not safe enough to be flown without special training." Which is true, that's why there are people who refuse to fly them. I've been to the course, and it is good, if you have to fly a helicopter with all the quirks that the Robbies have.

[MileHi480B]

First, let me throw out that I don't know ANYthing about robbies other then I sat in one on the ground once, I'm merely reading the addendum as Goldy posted.

 

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill here guys.

 

Should it have been talked about before the purchase agreement was signed.. Yes, it says that in the addendum.

 

Would I be upset if this happened to me.. Yes!

 

Would I reconsider buying it from RHC.. Yes!

 

But here is the deal.. The addendum doesn't say you can't legally fly outside of those conditions, it simply releases RHC from liability if you do.

 

It is not like buying a car and then finding out you can't drive over 55. You still can drive over 55, it's just if you crash over 55 and haven't taken their course then you can't sue the car company. However if it was because of a faulty tire you can still sue the tire company, the asphalt layer, the person who planted the tree you hit, etc.. You can even still sue the car company and if you have a good lawyer he'll probably find away around the addendum, specially since it says you should have talked about it before the purchase agreement but the date you signed it was after the purchase date.

 

 

Totally 100% agree! but if you want your helicopter, you're going to have to accept the fact that they screwed up. You can either take it, or fight it in court to get your money back.

 

If it were me... I'd bring the addendum to a lawyer, get his interpretation of it, and then decide. Don't ask over the phone, physically bring it to a lawyer, legal wording is very specific and can't always be conveyed in the right way verbally.

 

While I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one, I have had some law classes, but that does not give me the power to make law decisions. Therefore, take my comments not as fact but as my personal opinion as a common proletariat citizen. lol!

 

I did have my attorneys read it. The REAL problem is this:

 

If I sign a contract saying I will not carry passengers, then I carry passengers and there's a problem ... I AM AUTOMATICALLY NEGLIGENT (negligence per se) because I breached a written agreement.

 

If I sign a contract saying I will NOT sell it to a person unless they sign the Addendum but I end up selling it to someone without getting the addendum signed ... I am forever responsible for ALL SUBSEQUENT PROBLEMS because I set the wheels in motion (due course) by not getting the addendum signed.

 

My insurance can also refuse to cover any claims if I breach an agreement.

Edited January 6, 2011 by MileHiR44

[Snowman]

MileHiR44,

 

I know you were looking into buying a new R44, I also know that you have owned one and are capable of flying it. Also knowing your background I think this will be interesting. Please keep us informed. I hope it works out in you favor, does RHC know who there dealing with? I would go flying with you anytime, with or without the class.

 

Tim

[Hover225]

Granted the way RHC has handled this is wrong, but it would still be a valuable experience to attend the course. Great info and excellent time to network!