Quote:
Originally Posted by peter simundson
a great reply which makes sense.
I wouldn't doubt this could also be used as an excuse to have equipment returned if they couldn't find a good reason otherwise. PS
|
I purposely stayed out of this "debate" as it could have an impact on the type of work I do (when contracted...). But now, I can't resist since Clive brought up ITAR.
Two things strike me - first, the use of the word "loan" and the people who are surprised when the loan is called in. Leaving that word aside, the second issue is that magic abbreviation ITAR. ITAR trumps loans of any nature and is not a battle the little guy can win. You are dealing with the force of law of a superpower that has the balls to back up its legislation - even in a foreign land (read Canada).
Dealing with ITAR issues raises a lot of confusion, and it keeps lawyers busy. This wonderful "device" was put in place partially to make sure that allies who use US kit do not dispose of it in such a way that the kit ends up being used by US enemies. Just imagine the looks on the faces of US troops when they look up and see US made armoured vehicles in the service of their enemy... If you think it couldn't happen, think again. I am sure others on this forum can cite an example or two. The US and Cdn governments take ITAR seriously and there is no wiggle room in my experience.
I am of the opinion that you would have a better chance of ramming a stick of butter up a wolverine's arse with a red hot poker, whilst naked than fighting an ITAR issue.