ORGAN DONATION

Its not as easy as you think

Cast of Characters

• Lee Simmons – old client of JH and HFHP

• Musicom Organs – manufacturer

• Bill Glasson – old and unwell director of Musicom

• PWD – Pearce Webster Dugdales – Victorian Lawyers for Bill and Musicom

Time Line - 24 April 2004

Contract agreed for Musicom to manufacture an organ.

Price - $167,600 – including delivery, installation and ‘voicing’

2mx2m Console with Oak cabinets, 32 small speakers, 4keyboards, 2 very large bass cabinets, 32 amplifiers

Deposit paid $160,000

Later extras and changes took price to $179,600

Bill says delivery will be July 2005

Time Line

17 February 2006

Letter received - organ ready for despatch on 22 February from Melbourne.

But there was a slight problem

Time Line

March 2006 – receive a letter from Musicom claiming balance outstanding of $7,600.April 2006 - receive a further claim for $2,040 for English voicer who had booked his flight to come in February (without prior notice to Mr Simmons)July 2006 - Conservatorium of Music in Sydney confirm that they will accept the organ as a donation if they can find a room for it

Time Line

April 2004 – organ ordered

February 2006 – client dies

July 2006 – home at the Conservatorium of Music is agreed

May 2007 – no date for installation yet from Bill

5 December 2007

“Mr Humphries was not sure where they could store the organ over the holiday period so I feel it might be as well to wait until January when he returns before sending this large piece of equipment to them as I really do not want the console to be moved from place to place as it is fairly large, heavy unit and I do not want to risk any damage to it as a result of unnecessary handling by people who may not be aware of the delicate nature of the equipment. “

Still no precise date and time for delivery

Time Line

Uni says delivery 2007 is OK because Uni on holidays and room not being used.

Arrangement made for delivery between 14-21 January 2008

December 2007

Enter new participant

Glenn Hannafin of Pearce Webster Dugdales

Bill’s lawyer and letter writer of extra terrestrial skill

Time Line

April 2004 – organ ordered

February 2006 – client dies

July 2006 – home at Conservatorium agreed

December 2007 – agree to deliver January 2008 and install February 2008 whilst Uni on holidays.

14 February 2008

Phone call

There’s a PROBLEM.

“and I do not want to risk any damage to it as a result of unnecessary handling by people who may not be aware of the delicate nature of the

equipment.

So what happens

12 March 2008 PWD writes a letter

(grovelling you think?)

“As our client sees it, the repair of this organ is a four stage process, with some stages happening contemporaneously. Firstly and most obviously, as previously indicated, Mr Tony Koorlander is the only competent person in the world to tune and voice an organ of this complexity and our client is enquiring of him presently whether he has one or two weeks spare over the course of the next three months to return to Australia.

Once the cabinet work is restored, our client will then need to examine the organ with its various bits [accessories and electronics] needing to be attached to the organ so as to establish the quantum of the damage and then do a mental estimate within his own mind of the amount of time required to repair what might be called non-scientifically the “internals” of the organ – electronics, cabling and things like that. This can realistically only be done on site at the university’s rehearsal room where the other bits and pieces of equipment are already waiting. Therefore, the organ will need to be transported from the current warehouse at Blacktown in Sydney, off to Mr Bosman and then into the conservatorium.

Once Mr Glasson has examined the organ, he will be able to understand whether the repair work (which is his task) will take half a day, one day, five days or even longer. That cannot be known until he can see the re-assembled organ with its other constituent working parts. Then, once the organ is repaired both as to woodwork and mechanics and electronics, the installation task can be re-visited, fitting in with Mr Koorlander’s schedule.”

Time Line

April 2004 – organ orderedFebruary 2006 – client diesJuly 2006 – home at Conservatorium agreedDecember 2007 – agree to deliver January 2008 and install February 2008 whilst Uni on holidays.February 2008 – did you hear about the organ that fell off the back of a truckApril 2008 - Organ not yet gone to the cabinet makers to be repaired (2 months after its fall) and 3.5 years since ordering

21 April 2008

I receive one of the best letters that I had (at least up to that point in time) ever received

“Within a matter of days, you advised to confirm the death of Mr Simmons, which was hitherto unexpected, not known to our client at the time and which caused our client and his wife some distress, as they noted to you at that time.

Several months passed and, on 15 March 2007, your Mr Harris wrote to our client, commencing “It has been a long time since I have spoken to you or made contact. I apologise for the delay but, perhaps, this is consistent with this matter generally. Such an apology may be seen to be somewhat shallow and sheepish and seeking to deflect and re-direct or focus fault for delay. Your letter went on to indicate that you would like to think that the transaction could be finalised by 30 June, 2007.

On 29 August, 2007, your firm wrote an intemperate letter to Mr Glasson, requiring a 14 day response time as to a date when he and the voicer could deliver the organ to the Music Conservatorium at the University of Sydney.

Mr Glasson responded immediately, being the following day, indicating that his present medical problems were not so easily resolved so as to make it possible to “wave a magic wand” and deliver the organ to Sydney and install it so readily. Mr Glasson went on to comment that he would be glad to get rid of the “monster organ” and clear it out of his store. He asked for you to, perhaps, telephone him upon receipt of his letter.

On 24 October, 2007, your Mr Harris wrote further to Mr Glasson in an even more intemperate tone, commentating that Mr Glasson’s company had a contractual obligation which it “appears unable or unwilling” to meet. Then, your Mr Harris comes out with one of the most egregiously offensive sentences that the writer has ever read from a lawyer in his legal career, say that “if you have to come up [to Sydney] in a wheelchair, the(sic) so be it”. The letter carries the tone of an ultimatum and, indeed, that is the very word that it describes itself to be putting remarks that the delays are “solely” of [Mr Glasson’s] own creation.

We are instructed to comment that the tone of this letter is highly offensive. It is written in a tone similar to previous letters written by you and, as noted earlier in this our letter, the body of correspondence from you includes one of the most offensive sentences written by a fellow practitioner and read by the writer in his legal career.

The tone of your correspondence seems to sheet all responsibility in this matter to our client. At any fact situation which is capable of certain objective interpretation, interpretation is taken by you (whether upon instructions or by the author of the letter, it is not clear) to find fault with Mr Glasson.

From our observation of this matter and without having an emotional frisson running through that observation, it appears to us that Mr Glasson has tried his level best to comply with the contractual expectations in this matter at all times. This has been subject to other matters happening in his life, including his health issues. Mr Glasson has written impeccably courteous letters and tried to deal with the situation as best as possible. You seem to misunderstand the contract and what led up to this contract. The late Mr Simmons was a very keen music and organ aficionado. He came to know Mr Glasson and Mr Koorlander sufficiently well that they had a very amiable and mutually respectful relationship.

The organ that he ordered was no ordinary organ but one of enormous size, complexity and eccentricity. It was designed and meant to go into his specific music room at his house in the Australian Alps. It was always going to be a big job. Mr Simmons at all times knew that the organ was of such an extreme complexity and type that only Mr Koorlander could competently voice and tune it to the quality that he would have expected of his dream organ and to the quality that Mr Glasson would have required for such an imposing and high-end organ.

Our client is working to deal with the unfortunate set of circumstances that has arisen but your clients (understood to be the estate), having long manifested annoyance and writing through solicitors with tones of intemperateness, seem to have taken an unduly subjective and aggressive attitude to the matter, which is unhelpful.

Whilst it can be understood that, viewed grossly and without finesse, three plus years from contract to completion, looks a long time (but without conceding that it was a long time), there are reasons, (not “excuses”) why this has come to pass. Certainly those reasons are not “solely” lying at the feet of Mr Glasson.

Closing letter, we re-state that our client remains of goodwill to the completion of this contract. He would like to think that reciprocal goodwill could be evinced from the other party but that is a matter for you and your clients.

Finally, we are instructed to say the following to you – we would hope and trust that it is read and digested with equanimity and without petulant response.

Our client’s health is deteriorating significantly now. A knee replacement that he put off so as to assist your clients last year is now pressing heavily. He is now on crutches and a knee operation must inevitably take place sometime in the near future. He is prepared to stave off the major operation and put up with the pain and discomfort for a few more months.

June 2008

New date for delivery and installation set for July 2008 (uni semester break)

Just when you thought it might be over......

We receive the best letter we have ever received

(surpassing even Mr Hannafin’s earlier letter of 21 April)

“We re-state what was said in the opening two paragraphs of our letter to you of 20 May 2008 which plainly has made its way to Mr Swanton. We wish to see that theme (i.e. of non-confrontation) to continue.

Responding as best as reasonably possible and with some more information both to you and Mr Swanton, we are instructed to comment as follows:

The organ has been repaired from a cabinetry and organ-maker’s perspective, i.e. Mr Bosman, the Sydney cabinet-maker, has repaired the woodwork and our client, as the organ-maker, has repaired as much as he can off-site with the organ not attached to other peripherals which are already on site at the Conservatorium. With things as they stand at the moment, our client is happy with the rehabilitation of the organ.

Mr Glasson instructs us that he confidently asserts that the organ will be quite serviceable, functional and operate as originally intended. This will be the end product of the installation, voicing and testing phase. Nothing less is intended and nothing less will be delivered.

As to ongoing service issues, plainly Mr Glasson will not be around forever (or at least the expected life-span of this organ).

Here it comes

As the precise installation issues, regrettably another issue has arisen. We can picture your respective reactions (those of Mr Freidman and Mr Swanton) at reading this current and following paragraphs but, we are afraid to say, that what you are about to read cannot have been helped.

Mr Koorlander has suffered multiple injuries in a cycling accident in Great Britain the weekend before last. Plans to have him come over to Australia have been thrown into disarray, accordingly. The injuries are severe and include cracked ribs, some serious knee injury, wrist sprain and other less serious injuries. He will not be able to fly to Australia nor be in a position to be doing painstaking installation work.

So, that is not a good situation.

However, our client has made extensive enquiries and researches into a replacement.

We know that much comment has been made of Mr Koorlander’s uniqueness, however, our client is now constrained to go for a “silver medallist” (if you excuse please the colloquialism of this turn of phrase) for the voicing job.

The connotation of the above is that the voicer is expected to be of extremely high quality, but not the preferred absolute premium quality that Mr Koorlander would have brought.

Indeed, in further communications with Mr Koorlander very recently, he [ie Koorlander] has ventured the selfless opinion to our client that Mr Blyth (below) might even be a better voicer than him , so that is gratifying news.

In some concluding remarks, we must write, understanding that you are not the solicitors for the University and couldn’t possibly be so in the circumstances, but can only be regarded as a porte-parole for it. We write understanding, however, that Mr Swanton will be reading our reply.

The above few paragraphs resemble more traditional legal writing presentation, however, we wish to re-state our client’s goodwill and desire to achieve an outcome that is satisfactory for all parties (inclusive of the Conservatorium) and which reflects the various difficulties that this matter has faced without partisan recriminations or blame-projection.

We trust that the above is satisfactory and we would like to be able to revert to dealing with the Conservatorium on a pragmatic basis to have the final phase moved into actuality, taking into account the dates mentioned above. Can someone from the University touch base with Mr Glasson directly for facilitation of same?

Time Line

April 2004 – organ orderedFebruary 2006 – client diesJuly 2006 – home at Conservatorium agreedDecember 2007 – agree to deliver January 2008 and install February 2008 whilst Uni on holidays.February 2008 – crash bam21 April 2008 – Cycling accident “silver medallist

called in”

8 August 2008

Organ installed

4 years after being ordered

Would you like to see it?

Postscript

12 February 2009

Receive a letter of demand from PWD claiming $46,500

Postscript 2

September 2009

The Conservatorium ring me and invite the executors and friends of Lee Simmons to a recital with an organ prodigy to thank the donors.

Unfortunately the Recital was cancelled because during practice the speaker system blew the whole electrical system of the Conservatorium.

Postscript 3

PWD offer to settle for $19,000

Matter not settled

(but we have offered $12,000)