Aero Trial Update.

[Otter]

I stand corrected!

 

[Edward]

Edward,different country! Still similar but not quite the same!

Quite - I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the UK was a single country; it is a single state, made up of three and a bit countries; for purposes of law, there are three separate jurisdictions - E&W, Scotland, and N Ireland. Scots law certainly has its quirks - much more common law based than English law, for a start. If memory serves, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 doesn't apply up there, and murder is still a common law offence?

Here in the States, I would put more value on the civil suit. The small piece of the civil suit would be for the return of, or compensation for, the stolen items. The main focus of the civil suit would involve misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, etc. In other words, if I was handling the civil suit, I would focus on shutting AL down, in addition to a damages award. AL could not have been started so quickly, with so many patterns and so many hide options, if Will hadn't (1) stolen patterns, (2) learned of suppliers and supply costs from his time at Aero, (3) learned of customers and prices charged from his time at Aero.

Does Scottish/UK law recognize these types of claims as we do in the States?

That would incorporate a number of different allegations and issues there. Speaking in general terms, and with no comment offered on the existing criminal case...

Broadly speaking, general knowledge as to the running of a business is extremely difficult, if not impossible to protect. Trade secrets can be confidentiality agreements and the likes), and there are various mechanisms to try and protect folks in service businesses (like lawyers) from "stealing" clients, again primarily contractual, gardening leave and so on.

In terms of patterns, there is a strong similarity, it is true, between AL's and the Aero lineup at the time staff left Aero to start AL. If Aero are minded to take a civil case on grounds of copyright infringement, they would have to be able to satisfy the court that patterns had been copied. The basic jacket designs are primarily historical - either copies of specific jackets, or generic styles of the era. As such, the designs of these jackets are out of protection. Any of us could legitimately dismantle a jacket and build our own pattern from that, but copying another person's pattern to make the same jacket, where that pattern might be under copyright protection, is a no-no. In the event of a civil case being taken on intellectual property grounds, that would be the crux of it.

The other issue I think it especially unwise to speculate on at this point, given direct relationship to the trial. Suffice it to say here that as a general issue civil courts can deal with requests for return of property / ownership disputes. However, the relationship between the two systems is different in the UK than the US. Whereas in the US the families of those alleged to have been killed by OJ Simpson were able, following the not guilty verdict in riminal court, to sue for causing death in civil court (and won, based on the lower standard of proof required in civil cases), in the UK taking such a civil case after all the criminal appeal options had been exhausted would be considered to be an illegitimate effort to reopen the issue after the final say so has been had by criminal courts, and will not be permitted. Where recovery of property is involved - again, speaking in very general terms - a civil case for the recovery of property by one party known to be in the possession of another is generally fine, but if the courts believed that this was an attempt to reopen a settled matter on the issue of guilt for a charge of theft, the case would be thrown out. To the best of my knowledge this general picture is the same in the Scottish jurisdiction.

As a rule, where a particular set of circumstances can give risee to both criminal proceedings and civil proceedings, the latter normally follows the former, at least in my experience. The decision whether to proceed with criminal charges lies with the approproate prosecution authorities; an aggrieved party does not have the right to choose to go to civil courts instead of criminal. Both systems may provide redress for the specific behaviours involved, but are based on separate laws. Very different approaches, really.

I would reiterate, though, that these comments are offered as a general discussion on matters of public interest, and are purely incidental to the ongoing criminal proceedings.

 

[Edward]

Edward put it nicely, though in a somewhat academic way.

Well, I am an academic.

 

[Edward]

There has been a civil case pending for quite a while. The focus of the civil case is trade secrets and related issues, as opposed to the theft of personal property underlying the new criminal case.

Yes - worth noting, too, that our robust Contempt of Court Act 1981 (which does apply in Scotland) covers reports of civil proceedings too - another reason I'm very clear that comments above are of a general nature and not intended to be read as direct comment on the specific case.

Onc e it's all done and out in the wash, we can have a much more interesting discussion.

 

[Otter]

Veritas is a complete defense!

 

[HoosierDaddy]

It was stated on this forum that Amanda moved to the other side of the Island anticipating marriage if I remember correctly.
HD

 

[Edward]

Veritas is a complete defense!

Libel yes (though you still have to prove it - remember Liberace!), contempt, no!

 

[Sloan1874]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/295664-manager-accused-of-stealing-almost-200000-from-aero-clothing-ltd/

 

[Bunyip]

Might be worth stockpiling some coin for the possible fire sale at AL....

 

[Monitor]

Yeah, I think sadly, this is it for AL...

 

[Smithy]

This is a good thing, it's been hanging around like the elephant in the room for awhile now.

Great that there will be some closure either way. Although I imagine that if a certain verdict is reached, it will affect where people put their jacket pounds/dollars/pesos/etc.

 

[Bunyip]

Yeah, I think sadly, this is it for AL...

If the allegations are proved correct, it's pretty hard to feel any sympathy except for the employees in their care. On the flip side,it might be possible to get a killer deal on a nice fqhh jacket made of special steer?

 

[Monitor]

On the flip side,it might be possible to get a killer deal on a nice fqhh jacket made of special steer?

lol lol lol

 

[morrison2951]

Long time coming- we all suspected the worst with the AL situation. Looks like we were right.

 

[Big J]

Just my opinion but, even though I've had my issues with Aero (which were all resolved perfectly to my satisfaction by Ken), I would never order a product from AL, since it is my understanding that AL is run by the people behind the 'storse' scandal at Aero a few years back. After that, why would I trust them with my money? AL has employees who will likely suffer now. I guess they should have done their homework on their employer.

 

[schitzo]

Even if Will was guilty - and we presume he's innocent until proven otherwise - how is the end of the road for AL exactly? I don't get it, an I missing something glaringly obvious? Will doesn't own that company, he's not in charge there either

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Now the Plumber should be making an appearance real soon...

 

[frussell]

Hope this doesn't appear too trollish, but I always wondered. Was Will the one who actually sewed the FQHH labels in the "storse" jackets? I only ask because the person who assembled mine still works at Aero, and it seems like that person would have known the difference. My "storse" LHB weighed over 11 lbs., and was easily spotted as steer in a few photos by Ken and Holly. Maybe I'm too suspicious, and the jacket makers are so busy they don't really take a look at the tags. Just wondering, really no malice intended. Frank

 

[schitzo]

Now the Plumber should be making an appearance real soon...

Well let's hope so eh cos your brand of dementia adds very little to proceedings and wears thin even quicker.

This is not a case of batting for different sides it's a case of those who don't have a side coming up against those who so clearly do. Maybe that's not entirely accurate. I do have a side, the side of the consumer ergo I come on here to discuss issues that affect my interest - the consumer's - not to defend or represent any one business in particular. My view, they're all big boys who can look after themselves. Plus, realistically we aren't privy to anything that's gone on behind closed doors rather we are mere onlookers, drip fed morsels of information by overt shills; contributions therefore that are anything but tainted. Do you dig? I don't suppose you do. Time for a nap?

 

[nick123]

^Time for a hug you two.