On 2 Jun 2004 11:52:13 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:27:52 -0400, DSK said:

If Haggie is paying for the "use" of the slip for 30 days, then it
seems reasonable that she should have the use of it, to occupy or
allow a friend to temporarily occupy it in her absense.

The easiest way to get the desired answer to a question is to assume the
answer in posing the question. She's paying for whatever the contract says
she's paying for. Unless the contract's poorly drafted, it will probably say
she's paying for being allowed to use the slip for docking a specific
vessel. Of course both she and the marina owner are presumably consenting
adults, and if they want to provide that she's paying for being allowed to
use the slip to dock whatever vessel she wants in there, the answer would be
different.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

I am not surprised that you view it that way. Those of us not blessed
with a "legal" background tend to view things in terms of
reasonableness, fairness and equity. It would seem obvious that
Haggie's slip agreement was a one-sided document ignoring those basics
tenets, which may be a delight to someone in your profession, but
which ultimately leads most of the rest of us to view your profession
with disdain. For you to assume that if Haggie's slip is not
continually "double booked" it is somehow a "cost" to marina is
interesting in an absurd sort of way. Hopefully Haggie is not also
paying for "time on the hard" if it is at the same marina, or that
really would be adding insult to injury.

As I sail on a lake where we have no real issue with transients, this
is not an issue for me at this time. I have heard that there are at
least two lawsuits threatened or ongoing at my marina relating to the
prohibition of outside labor and the overbilling for electricity. I
guess we will see where that goes.