Ford vs Safir


Hi Guys!

My good friend Don S. , cobraownr, has alerted me to this post for which I am very greatful. I must leave right now for my appointed colonoscopy, however, upon my return I would be pleased to update all on the Ford vs. Safir saga.

Bob Wood
 
Mr Wood!
Because of the litigation,
I will have to ask you not to discuss this issue until a settlement is reached.
Thank you!
Daniel
Moderator
 
Sounds like a brutal discussion - I've never heard of a colonoscopy being part of the settlement terms...
 
B O N Y said:
Mr Wood!
Because of the litigation,
I will have to ask you not to discuss this issue until a settlement is reached.
Thank you!
Daniel
Moderator
Click to expand...

Is that a joke?
 
No, not at all,..
Perhaps you would like to pay potential legal fees that this board or I might incur traveling to a deposition? Speak up, don't let the cat get your tongue...

I left the post for all to see. Members can chat it up, I started the thread, but we will not allow the litigants to post.

End of story. The second anyone mentions that they are going to litigation, they are not allowed to discuss that topic on this board.

Bony
 
So you guys can all call him a greedy genital head and he can't respond?

Nice.
 
answer my question please...
as to yours, the answer is yes,,,
but, there might be other boards which will allow him to post...
 
nota4re said:
Sounds like a brutal discussion - I've never heard of a colonoscopy being part of the settlement terms...
Click to expand...

Kendall - You are a funny man! - Gill Jr.
 
Centerpunch,

As an attorney I can tell you that Bony's rule is well founded. The litigants should not be allowed to post (as I'm sure their attorneys have advised them) because to do so may subject DBK and/or Bony to subpoena and deposition as the following example demostrates:

Mr. Wood posts something that is of interest to his opponents. Mr. Wood denies he posted the information. Opposing counsel must then authenticate the statement as an exception to the hearsay rule (statement against interest, admission by party opponent, etc.) to prove Mr. Wood made the post. Opposing counsel then issues a subpoena to DBK and/or Bony to get the computer records to demonstrate the post came from Mr. Woods' computer. Opposing counsel then takes the deposition of Bony and/or DBK to authenticate the computer records for use in court.

What appears to be a simple post can turn into a major headache for the people who donate their time to run this forum. I have seen the above example in action. As an attorney, I've been on both sides of the issue.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, what folks need to fully understand, that when litigation is being considered legal researchers are combing the internet. It is always wise to consider this when posting.

I can tell you right now a video shot on a public highway of someone we all know speeding at three times the speed limit in most states is part of a judicial process.
 
B O N Y said:
Thanks, what folks need to fully understand, that when litigation is being considered legal researchers are combing the internet. It is always wise to consider this when posting.

I can tell you right now a video shot on a public highway of someone we all know speeding at three times the speed limit in most states is part of a judicial process.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine is an insurance defense lawyer and had this gem to share: a nice young lady claimed severe neck and back injuries as a result of an automobile accident. The insurance investigators did their typical internet investigation and found the woman's Myspace or Facebook page (I don't recall which one). This smart gal posted pictures of herself in a commercial dryer in some college hazing ritual. Imagine her surprise.

I'm amazed what people will post on the internet.
 
I think everyone here should attend a seminar on legal electronic discovery. It is quite an eye opener. Of course, StormCat is always open season.
 
B O N Y said:
I can tell you right now a video shot on a public highway of someone we all know speeding at three times the speed limit in most states is part of a judicial process.
Click to expand...

Definitely. I can also tell you someone else we know had two police officers show up at his house and tell him he had 24 hours to turn himself in because of an internet video.

Major reality check on what you should and shouldn't share on the internet, whether on video or by typing. If the law can be involved, silence is golden.
 
DBK said:
Please do. I'd be interested to read.

Somebody I know very well and trust from the FGT program told me that that was indeed the figure they started off at. Can't imagine he has any reason to fabricate.
Click to expand...

We said to Ford that you, Ford, get 7.5% of the MSRP of a product to put the Blue Oval on that product. Ford, however, kept the Blue Oval and could license it to someone else.

Safir suggested that the negotiations begin at the same % that Ford gets to license, not sell, its trademark. Tom Scarpello did the calculations and the result was over $40 million. Neither John Sadler, Brady Pack, nor I knew the MSRP of the car or the number of units that were to be produced. Scarpello then said that that was over $40 million. We did the math, and, sure enough, it was over $40 million. We did not demand or even suggest that number to Ford. It was a result on the 7.5% for which we asked, not knowing the fianl number.:cheers
 
Fubar said:
I agree, this is just a word dance. They asked for 40mil... they certainly would have taken it. If do want to look greedy... then don't be greedy. It is not acceptable (especially when dealing with contracts) to be "just kidding around."
Click to expand...

Fubar,

Please see my response above about the way in which the discussions transpired. There were no "negotiations" with The Ford Motor Company. For 20+ years I have been president of a company. John Sadler has owned a company for 25+ years. Brady Pack has been in a situation which has required negotiation for 20+ years. It is my belief that our combined negotiation skills allowed us to understand what we thought was fair and reasonable. We asked for it in business-savy ways. Ford would not deal.

It is my thought, and mine only, that Tom Scarpello told the people at Ford that he could get the job done with these "hicks" for little money, i.e., $100,000-$250,000. When we would not sell for that amount, he told his management that we were unreasonable, would not settle for the $5million that he offered, etc.. That never happened. Ford never would and never did offer us anything in writing. We did discuss "what ifs" offered by Scarpello, however, he would never put it in writing.

Anything that anyone hears from someone who "knows" that differs from the above, is not correct. I was in the room.:frown

Bob Wood
 
There is no civil suit between Ford and Safir, Ford and H&M, or H&M and Safir. The filing in the NC court is a filing in an opposition in the United States Patent & Trademark Office regarding the shape of the GT40, which action has been going on for several years now, and is outlined in cobraownr's thoughtful posting of my rather lengthy discertation about the Ford/Safir issue. There is no new law suit as was indicated by the posting.

Bob Wood
 
911teo said:
What is funny is that Ford originally called the car Ford GT. It was only the British press that started calling it GT40 after being impressed by how low to the ground it was (40 inches tall).

I have a copy of an interview with Carroll Shelby on Octane where he recalls this very fact.

I can scan it later if anybody is interested.
Click to expand...

All records indicate that the LeMans project was called the "GT40" project. I fervently believe that Shelby's comments in "Octane" 40 years later were done so so as to support Ford's decision not to buy the GT40 trademark form Safir.

Ronnie Spain has provided Safir with much documention to support our position.
 
Thank you timcantwell, centerpunch, and syco gt for your support!
 
B O N Y said:
Mr Wood!
Because of the litigation,
I will have to ask you not to discuss this issue until a settlement is reached.
Thank you!
Daniel
Moderator
Click to expand...

There is no civil litigation. The action to which the NC filing referred is the opposition of Ford and H&M to Safir obtaining a trademark for the shape of the GT40. The posting which appears on the web erroneously indicates that Ford is a plaintiff in an action against Safir, with H&M "somehow" involved. This is not the case.:bs
 
Wow, those prototype wheels are awesome. I guess it out if the question to find a set of those anywhere??

:cheers
Anders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top Bottom