He probably owes 100K on the cars. Everything he owns is on the drip. He only rents in Kew. See through type of bloke.
yea right. Just had a call from another guy picking my brain about what a old car is worth,gunna start charging for my time,they buy never thankyou/kiss my arse.
Just goes to show plenty of people out there with money but no idea of what a car is or worth. At least the "tryhards" buy new cars.
all those Kew types are the look-at-me look-at-me wannabes BBQ/X5 crowd, no sex for the husbands nobody owns the houses, all AGC/AVCO financed
my street's full of them, can't get my X5 out of the garage because of the horrible AMGs blocking the road and can't see the end of the road due to the BBQ smoke The bank's coming around tomorrow to re-po the Ferrari, the payments were too high and the price of drugs went up, so something had to go
I am aware that there was some legal advice. Nothing in writing to my knowledge and nothing with a great deal of content and its not clear that it was compelete. Of course YOU WOULD NOT (go to court) with your understanding as it is, but then nor have I said I WOULD REGARDLESS, though some seem to assume so. I assume you understand that $3 is was conceptual term and not a literal one.
Ive been critical of much of the process in the upcoming vote and of the National Committees (NC) part in this - the sell job, overstating the improvement in the proposed Agreement, not providing balanced advice and so on. My somewhat purist/idealist view of the situation is not improved by the absence of published legal advice, and for example, a suggestion that FCA asking Ferrari for permission to change its name suggests it believed Ferrari owned the name. Well Ferrari would say that but the claim looks less impressive when one understands that it was the Justice Department (Vic) that required us to ask in 1998 - and presumably did so without any knowledge that we were (a) a car club and (b) had used Ferrari in our name since 1973. This was innocent stuff at the time, but unfortunately also the feedstock for legal argument in 2011. On balance, all this points to my disagreeing with the NC chosen direction - but not so. The direction preferred by the NC is still a sad direction in many ways but with two lots of soft advice to the effect that there is a case of some sort that Ferrari could and would choose to run and that this would cost around $50,000 rather than $5000, the decision to accept the Agreement is not unreasonable, and quite probably the right one. It is fair to wonder what is different today than in 1973 when the FCA started out as the Australian Ferrari Register - aside from the commercial world being tougher the big difference is in the enactment of the Trade Marks Act 1995. There are learned views to the contrary, but the anti-dilution sentiments in that Act help well known names and celebrities to limit the use of their names on unrelated products. This is where entities like Ferrari get the opportunity to overstep the original purpose of their mark and be the corporate bully. This is because while there are prior-use and desciptive use not applicable rules that would restrict the wider use the celebrity name clause, these apparently to not stop the celebrity with a big wallet from waving it around like a thug with a machete. The situation is analagous to owning a nice home and being allowed to dictate who lives next door - understandable but unpalatable.
