While I would like to hold any party responsible for a promised and paid for service, I can almost guarantee that in the EULA for their phone it does not guarantee service anywhere, anytime. In fact I'll bet that it says words to the effect that it may fail anywhere and at any time. If it doesn't then the provider has a good cause of action against the attorney that wrote that EULA. If I am right the provider delivered exactly what was contracted for.

A reasonable person would not set to sea in a small boat with the expectation that a complex electrical device will operate continuously and uninterrupted for weeks on end. Common experience suggests otherwise. Whether the interruption was due to salt water intrusion or service provider problems, the contingency should have been planned for, and in the event withstood as an expected scenario without grasping for deep pockets to blame.

While the contingency system of compensation has some good social aspects, it has many bad ones. One of which is the funding of lawsuits as a business venture, which is somewhat common now. The merits of a lawsuit may have little to do with it being prosecuted. But the defense costs money just the same. Sadly, they will probably get a settlement regardless of the merits, due to that cost. And unfortunately, I will be paying for their new boat in increased sat phone bills.

I don't blame the Kaufmans for pursuing their dream, in spite of the risks. But I do blame them for searching for a patsy to make good their misfortune. Which is the most direct, proximate cause of the need for their rescue: their choice of sat phone providers or their decision to embark on a voyage putting them a thousand miles from the nearest medical care with a history of medical problems?