Ok, silly question. Do you have to sign a contract with all kinds of conditions when buying a Cirrus or Cessna?

To me, this is insane. The only contract I expect to sign when buying a motor vehicle (either a car or a plane) is one that says "I give you so many dollars, you give me the plane".

Cirrus - absolutely not, even new (back a decade plus ago, not sure about now but couldn't see it happening)

Last Cessna - no, but it wasn't a "new" one. again, couldn't imagine that you'd need to and haven't heard anything of that ilk.

Has anyone gotten a tour of the factory and the progress on the assembly line? How about some pictures? This whole nutzy thing smacks of a scam. Tantalize and tease, then set the hook. Actually show some progress get some money to buy the bait. Then get the big payment before going bankrupt. There are a least a thousand plus hooks. Wont take too many swallowed whole to buy that cabana on an island in the sun.

I received this communication from Icon yesterday. I seriously doubt this was drafted by anyone other than a team of lawyers. Since Icon has responded in the public about the contract, I see no reason to not post it here. Everyone please feel free to opine on it.

The one clause that really got under my skin (amongst many) on this contract was Paragraph 17(e). The only times I have ever seen this inserted into a one-sided contract (without any negotiation) - it was indicative of bad actors and actions. Those could have been bad experiences - and have no relation to this issue - but it is, IMHO, a bit snarky. For those that aren't lawyers, it basically insulates Icon from having any ambiguity in the contract being ruled in favor of the customer. If two parties equally draft a document - that makes sense. When one party drafts a contract, any ambiguity is, by definition, their fault and they should not be able to benefit from it. Again, a technicality, and in the context of all the other non-starters in agreement, probably minor, but it is telling about the legal counsel that drew this up in my mind. Make me super vigilant.

I just completely lost any interest in ICON. I can't imagine anyone of sound mind agreeing to this.

it's such a shame. Another potentially good product killed by lawyers.

I wouldn't have a problem signing an indemnity agreement agreeing not to sue. The rest is ludicrous. Corporate nanny state! I don't like this trend.

Well, to each their own, but indemnity has far-reaching consequences beyond agreeing not to sue.

from the agreement:



I'd sign away my right to sue. but I would never signup to cover Icon's cost if someone else sues. Absolutely insane.

The agreement also states that the buyer can't sell the plane without Icon's approval. In effect you pay Icon what- $180K and they retain control of the aircraft (training, maintenance, sale)...sounds like you write a big check to rent the plane.

What is the penalty for selling it anyway without Icon's approval?
Can Icon demand removing sale record from their system?
How does all of it apply to foreign buyers (bot located inside US and not)?
Is this even enforceable outside US?

It looks to me the agreement was written by software lawyers, where you buy licence to use, without buying any rights to the product.

Yep, it sounds like anyone buying an ICON is setting themselves up for an Eclipse-like situation where the company is trying to control everything you do with the plane.

No, thank you.

Can they place a lien on it?

That makes sense to me. The Icon is a recreational toy- who would sign this agreement for a toy? Sure- there are people out there who can/would drop $180K without thinking twice- perhaps they're looking to sell to impulse buyers- people who will buy without reading the contract? I have a hard time believing there's a big enough market to make that happen.

If we use that correlation, you purchase a license to use the software not the software itself. If that's the case, did you really buy the plane? It's registered with a bill of sale, but you don't really have control of the airplane. Under certain conditions could an attorney make the argument that Icon has taken a greater responsibility for the aircraft given their ongoing relationship and control of each individual plane?

[quote="Scott McCray" The Icon is a recreational toy- who would sign this agreement for a toy? Sure- there are people out there who can/would drop $180K without thinking twice- [/quote]

My invoice was for over $250k - and I suspect that is where it will be for most of the aircraft - by the time you get mandatory options...

I'm not a lawyer but the paragraphs you've quoted seem to talk about 'purchase agreement' not the aircraft itself. Which to me means that you agree to not speculate with your purchase position (as in: I'll sell you #10 delivery spot for $5k). I see nothing about transferring the ownership of the airplane after all is said and done?

But even if I'm wrong my question stands - what's the penalty? The text says "In the event of a Transfer without ICON’s prior written consent, ICON shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Purchase Agreement" but again, what if the purchase agreement is executed properly and only afterwards I decide to sell?

Here is the situation: I am the owner of Icon 5 registered as an owner. I sell the airplane to somebody else and that somebody else registers it in their name. Icon learns about that from FAA database _after the fact_ (how could they otherwise?). What are their tools to reverse that? I doubt they can just go to FAA and say 'hey that guy promised us not to sell it'. To which FAA would respond 'sooo?'.

Or am I completely off base here?

So apparently I do need an attorney to read this thing for me. Crow tastes good..