From: "Barry J. Cohen" A > To: Jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Subject: RE: FW: Leon Black - Purchase of G650 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:41:31 +0000 Understood . We're having a call to discuss. From: Jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 9:39 AM To: Barry J. Cohen < Subject: Re: FW: Leon Black - Purchase of G650 an example barry is cosmetics. scratches on the wood . in the glass racks. . stains in carpet , none relate to ariworthy On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Barry J. Cohen < > wrote: FYI From: BarryJ. Cohen Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 9:02 AM To: 'Torn Mitchell' < < Cc: Wimer, Ruth <->; Ada Clapp < >; John Castrucci Subject: RE: Leon Black - Purchase of G650 Deyoe, David c >; Lee Rohde Understood. If "airworthy" is the typical provision, then this seems fine. I just wondered if there was a higher standard that is sometimes used in contracts. And you are saying that because we are requiring a 48-month inspection as a pre-condition to closing, we can live with a more basic pre-buy inspection, right? From: Tom Mitchell [mailto: 1 Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 8:58 AM To: BarryJ. Cohen < >; Deyoe, David < >; Lee Rohde < Cc: Wimer, Ruth <->; Ada Clapp Subject: RE: Leon Black - Purchase of G650 Hi Barry, I can take a shot at these questions as others can chime in. >; John Castrucci There are actually 4 ranking inspections offered by Gulfstream under the task of what we are calling a pre-purchase inspection. I think we should plan to modify which level is most appropriate based on the decision to perform the ancillary tasks like the 48 Month Inspection and bulkhead install. Reason being, is the redundancy is significant with the 48 Month inspection; for example the interior and landing gear is removed and inspected for corrosion, which is also done on the higher level pre-purchase inspections. Therefore, depending on who is funding which inspection, we should manage the process to be most