Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row

[ace_chris]

Muppetry of the highest order! What a shameful way for the museum and wider coniston community to behave with something that has so generously been partly gifted to them. How can it be better for k7 to be locked up as a prisoner in the museum.

Bill clearly you are not going to give up without a fight and you are a wily old fox (that’s a compliment!) so wishing you every success with the next part of the adventure. I’ve fought and won my fair share of legal battles over the years and know from experience there is more than one way to skin a cat...or a Ruskin museum!

[Renegadenemo]

Bill clearly you are not going to give up without a fight and you are a wily old fox (that’s a compliment!) so wishing you every success with the next part of the adventure. I’ve fought and won my fair share of legal battles over the years and know from experience there is more than one way to skin a cat...or a Ruskin museum!

Got no worries about our position, that will just have to come out in the wash. It's the possibility of letting down so many people who want to see K7 run this year that's really galling.

[Sam_68]

So, according to the Sun, BBP is relying on a contract that was never signed?

[Ernie Lazenby]

I don't want to get into this matter any further but need to say that if the contract submitted by the project to the Ruskin for consideration was not signed as accepted by the Ruskin trustees then it is of no value. That which took place before 2013 is all that matters. If it was signed by the trustees then I cannot see where this is going.
It is perhaps regrettable that this matter is now in the public domain and equally regrettable that only one side of the dispute is using social media to attract support. I recognise that many people feel very aggrieved however there is always two sides of a story and perhaps it would be a good idea to let matters take there course now. Bitterness and recriminations wont bode well for the outcome of this.
I don't want to be critical of Miss Campbell, a lady who I have met on a number of occasions and had the pleasure of her company at her former home, however her radical change of mind cannot be helpful to either side of the dispute.

Having seen first hand the fantastic restoration work carried out by the BBP I fully understand the frustration of all the team who have given so much of their time. I met a number of the team during a recent visit and they are a genuine bunch of enthusiasts who deserve my respect.

[Renegadenemo]

I don't want to get into this matter any further but need to say that if the contract submitted by the project to the Ruskin for consideration was not signed as accepted by the Ruskin trustees then it is of no value.

A commonly held misconception, but a quick sift through Google will soon reveal that that's not the case at all. What is needed is an offer, its acceptance, that some consideration or reward was to be received by both parties and the INTENTION to form a legally binding contract, and that is without the conduct of everyone following the agreement - and this situation has all those elements in spades so, like it or not, that's the position.

And in the meantime, the world would like to see K7 run again this year...

[Ernie Lazenby]

I am not taking sides when I say this; I know about verbal contracts however the fact that a subsequent submission of a written contract was not signed in the 6 years since the 2013 discussions indicates that whatever was said verbally has not been accepted by one party. Verbal agreements can be difficult to enforce particularly after the passage of time. Is this a situation of verbal agreements? not being followed up by a formal contract?
(Judge Rinder gets a load of cash for mediating on such matters )

BTW a proposed written contract submitted by one party but not accepted by the other does render it invalid, it all then reverts back to who said what to whom and what was agreed verbally. I would expect a party not accepting the written contract to have communicated an unwillingness to the sender.

Anyway lets hope something gets sorted soon I have a son and a 12 year old grandson who wants to see the old girl run soon never mind what I may or may not think.

[Renegadenemo]

BTW a proposed written contract submitted by one party but not accepted by the other does render it invalid, it all then reverts back to who said what to whom and what was agreed verbally. I would expect a party not accepting the written contract to have communicated an unwillingness to the sender.

No, it was all understood and agreed in writing at the time by both parties and never disputed since. All is well. Don't worry, your son and a 12 year old grandson will get to see her run. That said, unless we dispose of this silliness quickly he might be 13.

[captain sparkle]

here's the story from the sensational, soaraway sun
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8812701/r ... -bluebird/

[Renegadenemo]

here's the story from the sensational, soaraway sun

It's all good stuff. We tried hard enough to open dialogue with the museum behind closed doors, maybe getting it out there is the answer. The article was originally twice as long but the sub's cut it in half then put the wrong picture with it.

Robin is a nice guy, he was most apologetic.

[Healey nut]

Hi ho hi ho its off to court we go as I predicted ...
Google aint going to hold up in court Bill , without signed sealed documents to prove you have an accepted agreement this is all dead and “not in the water “ ...
The “agreement “ has about as much use as a sheet of two ply toilet paper . However the two ply will be softer to use .
This is going to be tied up in court for ages and the only ones happy are the lawyers .
I guess my UK trip is cancelled for this year and probably the next and the one after that and the one after that .............