First from airtaximan, an Eclipse model for frank castle, available on ebay.
Second, from a reader venturing a non-legal opinion on the Eclipse attempt to collect the 60% progress payments out of the next block (units 200-400) of position holders (notice, I never call them owners).
Well, since no real lawyers seem to want to respond to claudeb, let me take a stab at it: it is hard for me to imagine how Eclipse could cause themselves any legal liability by simply telling the truth as best they can. To the extent that statements (rather than actions) could cause Eclipse legal liabilities their biggest exposure, I think, would be if someone could successfully bring an action for fraud against them.
As I understand it, fraud is a high standard to prove: fraud only occurs when one makes statements that one knows to be false and those statements induce someone to incur a loss. Selling the same airplane twice would be fraud. Selling an airplane for delivery six months from now, if you have an internal schedule that you believe will result in that delivery, is not fraud, even if you actually end up being late.
Promising to deliver 400 airplanes when there are only 200 engines scheduled for delivery by the end of the year, might get to be a problem.
In the investment world, the law provides a "get out of jail free" card. Whenever a company provides information about their future plans they add a boilerplate "forward looking statements" section that says that things might not turn out they way they plan. This protects them unless the statements in question were known to be lies and were asserted simply to get people to buy or hold the companies stock.
Of course, one can bring an action against anyone for any reason you want. In Eclipse's case, I think they increase their liability for such actions by failing to correct public statements that have turned out to not be true. If I were the plaintiff I would argue that once Eclipse knew that its previous statements were false, failure to correct them constituted fraud. I would have to also show that I depended on such statements in good faith and that that dependence caused me a loss.
Of course I would expect that in most cases Eclipse could easily settle any such suit by returning the deposit or delivering the plane.
But I am not a lawyer and Eclipse doesn't seem to be looking to me for advice.
Third request, links pertinent to the Avidyne situation:
The scoop came from CharterX, eat your heart out Capt. Zoom:
Another reader suggests Eclipse may have found a replacement and offered the following:
It looks like Eclipse is planning on using Crossbow for their AHRS vendor.
It's interesting to note that last year people building experimental aircraft (RV-10 amongst others) using Chelton glass panels had numerous problems with a Crossbow produced AHRS. Direct-2 Avionics (Chelton's retailer to the experimental market) ended up paying to replace theCrossbow units with Pinpoint AHRS. Probably not the same model as Eclipse is using but the comments that there was no faith that Crossbow would get their design problems sorted out are telling.).
Here is a link to some of those problems: