David Piper vs Mark Hales

Here's a link to the Track Driver Mark Hales Appeal Page with a personal message from Mark: Track Driver Magazine Team | Mark Hales Piper Case Appeal

 

Well done Clive. You hit the nail on the head !

 

Been trying XX hours....automated (Paypal) page not working from the US.........

 

I sent a message to Track Driver informing them of the problem.

 

+1

 

All, many thanks for your support - it's greatly appreciated at a difficult time.

Having been made aware of this thread we would just like to add;

1. We have been working with Paypal and believe the international payments issue is now fixed. Donations can be taken globally at; Track Driver Magazine Team | Mark Hales Piper Case Appeal which redirects to Track Driver Magazine for trackday and racing enthusiasts.

2. The only fund Mark is aware of is the above one and there is reference to others, linked from Chris Rea? Please could you point us to those so we can make sure the funds are redirected properly?

3. Regarding the fees, Mr Piper also successfully made claim for loss of use. The initial negotiations were wholly between Octane, as the insurance provider, and Mr Piper. By the time those negotiations expired and Mr Piper started proceedings against Mark, the claim was already beyond what Mark could personally afford to settle and any goodwill from Mr Piper had been exhausted. This is why it ended up at court.

Kind regards

Stacy

 

Really, give me a break. If Mark was going to play, he should have to pay. He should have come to a signed agreement before taking the wheel, or should have not taken the wheel. He is not doing this free, it is for his own profit.

Now, he should stand up and pay like a man and not like a mouse. He has to have known when to hold them, known when to fold, known when to walk away, and know when to run.

He took the ride - and should have not if he couldn't protect his interest before the ride or the hold harmless for the property he was entrusted to use.

He is liable, and a court of law awarded against him. He should now deal with it. If he needs to beg - then beg. If he was not guilty, he should have appealed.

He should take control of his own actions. Should have, could have, would have if he would have done the normal and upfront. If it’s too late now, it is his too late.

I can not understand how anyone would feel sorry here. It's the problem with the world, no one accepts responsibility for actions anymore. And this is no exception. IMO

 

As I read the Octane article those numbers did not include counsel fees. Shocking, I agree.

 

Having myself many years ago raced sports cars here in the States and in France, though never the frightfully expensive machines David Piper has been privileged to run, I have tended to agree with those who concluded that the damage was caused by a missed shift, therefore driver error, therefore Hales responsibility in the absence of agreement to the contrary. However, now learning that Octane had been endeavoring to settle the matter amicably on behalf of its writer/employee/ driver, AND SEEING THAT MR. PIPER CLAIMED VERY SIGNIFICANT DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF USE, I am now on the other side. That is the position of a very, very greedy man, however rich and famous he may be. If it be true, I hafve lost all respect for Mr. Piper. My conjecture now is that Octane tried to settle on a reasonable basis but choked at the thought of acceding to a demand for many tens of thousands of euros for "loss of use".

Just the 2 cents of a lawyer who has practiced for over a half century.

 

Fix David Piper's Porsche 917 | Indiegogo

No Idea if it is really Chris Rea, or if this is legit, it was linked to on Jalopnik.

 

It's Chris Rae, not Chris Rea.

 

Chris Rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pete

 

Fix David Piper's Porsche 917 | Indiegogo

The author of the above article and person who set up a fund for the benefit of Mark Hales is Chris Rae, not the famous singer/songwriter Chris Rea.

 

Yes, sorry I made a facetious joke that got out of hand...

 

So, we'll just put you down for.....naught.

 

Apologies!

Returning to my corner
Pete

 

In my view this is whats wrong-it is an overly harsh view-clearly the driver made a mistake. He wasn't a lazy good for nothing-he works and he was struck by misfortune-yes he contributed to putting himself in that position. but, as the earlier appeal made by the fellow that stated he is a good guy and his work has given many some enjoyment and he is in a tight spot, why not help out your fellow man.

This ideology of total objectivity is too harsh, we have all made mistakes and can look back at our own miscalculations, risk taking or a flat out momentary error in judgement or execution. I am sure we can all look back to people that helped us in our time of need whether it was financial assistance, moral support, a roof over your head-whatever form it might take. This is one of the great things about human nature-helping one another. Why not do it now? Surely the experience has been extraordinarily trying for the writer, he has suffered.

A rigid ideology is always appealing, it makes for a simple lens to view the world, but life is just not that simple or easy to judge.

 

Why does it matter whether the driver is a lazy good for nothing or not? He made a mistake which damaged the item that was in his responsibility.

It is great that people are helping him, but IMO Mark should have paid from day one. End of story, OR when the mechanic said that the gear change was fine he should have got out of the car and said "sorry not driving it like that".

If Mark had paid from day one he would not have such a huge bill now. The engine rebuild was something like 5 times less than what he is required to pay now (unfortunately).

Anyway I know somebody on the other side of the fence who had his 911 Porsche, ex Le Mans car, crashed badly in a race and the person who had borrowed the car ran away ... it took this friend of my fathers many years to slowly build the car back up again.
Pete

 

The writings of a man who hasn't read the judgement and isn't aware of Hales' collection of vintage Harleys, nice farmhouse, 2 aircraft (one a twin) and the patronage of Nick Mason (yes, that Nick Mason...oh and he admitted to the insurer that the engine was fine until he missed a gear...

 

There is more to that element of the story but I would not want to post that here

 

Well, it seems they are questioning the ability of the judge...on that basis, there is some doubt, according to some legal friends of mine, that a lawyer would really want to risk disbarment by making such a statement...which suggests that....

 

On the basis that Dennis withdrew after, purely out of goodwill offering a sum to settle, it seems that they agree with what you say too...

 

Yes, that is true, but to his defence, one question he should answer is who influenced him to venture out again when he drew attention to the gearshift fault..was it entirely his decision I wonder?....after all, to set this whole thing up cost a pretty penny didn't it?...

 

You need to read the judgement (clearly you haven't) and you need to be aware of Piper's clearly stated policy. And you need to be aware that Hales admitted liability. And you need to be aware of just what Dennis offered in settlement to understand whether that covered the cost of the damage Hales caused (it didn't)

 

and that is the writings of a man who is totally unaware of Mark Hayles true financial situation....3 years of legal costs have taken their toll....if the initial payment to the court is not made by Friday Mark will be made bankrupt. Its no longer a case of who was to blame......the judge has made his decision....but Mark does not deserve this. I am told that as of this morning the contributions to the fund now stand at just over GBP 8K