Sure. And Gull Dive was operating under the watchful eye of PADI?
View attachment 732651
So someone who “could” have provided recognized oversight apparently didn’t. So should they have? In your opinion, with all that we know, we know that the training agency does not consider either the dive shop or the instructor to be an agent of the agency, we know that the training agency collects fees from both the dive shop as well as the instructor for membership at various levels, but we don’t know if a retail customer assumes that that dive shop operates in accordance with terms of their agreement with the training agency, but we now know that the training agency, even if they discover a violation of that agreement, won’t do anything about it, because neither the instructor nor the dive shop is an agent of the agency.
Do I have that right? Am I making sense, or am I out in outer space somewhere?