WHAT ARROGANCE!
feel free to contact us ms@robinsonhelicopters.org

 

No One
Member Since : 2018
Posts(232)
--

WHAT ARROGANCE!

01-02-2011 07:33:31

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!

Replies

simon
Member Since : 2007
Posts(321)
--
01-02-2011 09:07:46
I guess that brings up the old joke on the floor at Robinson.

What is the difference between God and Frank Robinson........

God does not think he is Frank

But seriously, Frank has brought helicopter flying to a large sector of the population that otherwise would never had had the opportunity to feel the freedom of helicopter flying. He has overcome huge obstacles and has my full admiration.

I can not say I am a fan of the new directives. It does seem a bit one sided.
Retrofitting about 2000 R 44 and 2000 R44ll at a cost of $13,000 each Menes an expenditure of approx 52 million, with most of it going to Robinson is a bit hard to swallow, considering it's questionable necessity.

But back to the original rant and off mine. Cause I like a good rant as much as the next guy.
When I purchased my new R44, it was made very clear to me by the dealer that I would not be allowed to take the machine off Robinsons property, unless I met:
                                        - minimum hours required
                                        - had completed the safety course
                                        - had flown the route home at least twice previously
All of the documents requiring this were on the Robinson site at the time.
They appear to be up dated since then but are still on there to this day.
My dealer went over them very carefully with me as he had lots of stories of people getting their money handed back to them as they did not meet Robinson's criteria. Hopefully your dealer can represent you at Robinson and seek a resolution but I doubt Robinson will budge much as these requirements have been in effect for at least 10 years.

Therefor, MileHighR44, with all due respect, I doubt you will find many here cheering on your threat to sue Robinson as it would appear that threats of lawsuits against this self insured company have just kicked all Robinson owners in the wallet again.
This time for 52 million dollars.
BellHeli
Member Since : 2008
Posts(18)
--
01-03-2011 03:57:52
Did you purchase your bird directly from Robinson, or through a dealer?
Rossco
Member Since : 2010
Posts(41)
--
01-03-2011 04:00:41
The safety course is something EVERY pilot should attend. Why do you have a problem with attending the safety course? that is a stupid reason to go to court. THe only winners here will be Robinson and your lawyer......
zeroechoecho
Member Since : 2007
Posts(162)
--
01-03-2011 05:31:48
I'm not sure this is a new requirement?  It seems I may have had to sign this same agreement several year ago when I purchased my ship; but I could be wrong.  Can someone verify this is a brand new requirement?

If it is a new requirement I can see MileHigh's point.  I don't think a court would allow a new set of restrictions or an addendum to a contract after the initial contract is signed, payment is made, etc.  The factory class is a great class and about the only thing that RHC does at a truly reasonable cost - but nobody should be forced to take the class.

In the TV industry when a stupid mistake is made, such as killing off a popular character, and the show eventually is cancelled the stupid mistake is called "jumping the shark".  The term comes from the old Happy Days TV show where Fonzi jumped his motorcycle over a tankful of sharks.  From that point forward Happy Days was doomed for failure.

I think RHC's decision to force owners to upgrade fuel tanks may be their "jump the shark" moment.  I can damn sure guarantee if I get ready to buy another helicopter I will take a serious look at Bell or Eurocopter!  It damn sure won't be a butt ugly R66.
BellHeli
Member Since : 2008
Posts(18)
--
01-03-2011 06:03:20
I purchased my R44-II in April of 2006.  The requirement in question is contained in an addendum to the purchase agreement from my dealer, and I signed it at the time of purchase:

RESALE CONDITIONS
In the event of resale of the R44 helicopter, Buyer agrees to obtain the new purchaser's prior written
agreement to all the terms of this agreement, and to forward an original copy of such written agreement to RHC.
In the event Buyer does not obtain such an agreement from the new purchaser, Buyer shall remain liable under
Paragraph 3 above.
taylor robinson
Member Since : 2015
Posts(11)
--
01-04-2011 05:22:12
I have to confess that I am a non practicing lawyer, so I am the dangerous kind who is not up on case law. And in the last year I purchased a used R44II. The Purchase and Sale Agreement was silent to any conditions the factory may have made regarding the use of the helicopter, but I would had stricken them had they been present. I think generally a subsequent purchaser could not be held to the terms of the original underlying sales contract for personal property. In fact I have a pilot who flies my copter who has not been to the safety course. It appears to be an insurance question and apparently they have backed off the requirement. I think its another California layer's idea of trying to bullet proof for litigation, like the suggestion that flight suits increase survivability in post crash fires. What if they required flight helmets? I wear one, but sometimes I prefer Lightspeed. Can they regulate that as well?

Good luck
13snoopy
Member Since : 2007
Posts(339)
--
01-04-2011 09:45:54
I purchased my R44-II in April of 2006.  The requirement in question is contained in an addendum to the purchase agreement from my dealer, and I signed it at the time of purchase:

RESALE CONDITIONS
In the event of resale of the R44 helicopter, Buyer agrees to obtain the new purchaser's prior written
agreement to all the terms of this agreement, and to forward an original copy of such written agreement to RHC.
In the event Buyer does not obtain such an agreement from the new purchaser, Buyer shall remain liable under
Paragraph 3 above.

The portion I have highlighted in bold print is laughable. Robinson evidently believes anything they print
is legal and binding.
13snoopy
Member Since : 2007
Posts(339)
--
01-04-2011 09:47:33
The safety course is something EVERY pilot should attend. Why do you have a problem with attending the safety course? that is a stupid reason to go to court. THe only winners here will be Robinson and your lawyer......

You are missing the poster's point entirely. Wow. It isn't very difficult to grasp.
13snoopy
Member Since : 2007
Posts(339)
--
01-04-2011 09:48:20
Some of you are missing the point. It is not a question as to whether the safety course is a good idea.  Yes, it is a good idea.  I'll admit that.

The point is they should not be able to add conditions after the sale and payment in full.  Otherwise what would stop them from adding all kinds of other conditions?  Why would any of you be alright with that?

Let's say I can't take the course for a year due to my schedule ... why is it alright for them to limit my use?

THE POINT IS ... I WAS NOT TOLD ABOUT THE CONDITIONS UNTIL AFTER THE SALE.

What if you bought a house.  And at closing they said ... you must sign an addendum agreeing to a particular security system?  What if that would cost you a considerable amount of money and you did not want to do it?  Should the seller be able to say "Tough" ... now we get to keep your earnest money?

I don't mind them refusing to deliver the helicopter.  But why should they also get to keep my money?  Who can believe that is a good way to do business?

If they told me before the sale, I would've refused and walked away.  But they told me after I paid in full!  Now I get to be punished.  I get to lose my money.

Please keep us updated and good luck.
IBTM
Member Since : 2007
Posts(206)
--
01-05-2011 01:37:51
IMHO, open and shut case---error was made by not informing you of terms, therefore recourse is totally yours. ;D
IBTM
Member Since : 2007
Posts(206)
--
01-11-2011 08:23:41
Good--Ok, we will all take a fee for our advice!  hahahahha  OK--if not a fee, then a good ride in your new bird, whenever! ;D