Commitment and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Repurchase Commitments In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions for sales generated from both the U.S. and Australia operating segments. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve and related statement of operations account accordingly. This potential loss reserve is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the original repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of goods sold in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss). No units were repurchased for the nine months ended March 31, 2015 or March 31, 2014. The Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of March 31, 2015 or June 30, 2014, respectively. Contingencies Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below under "Legal Proceedings," management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at March 31, 2015 (unaudited) or June 30, 2014 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Proceedings On October 31, 2013, the Company filed suit against Nautique Boat Company, Inc., or Nautique, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement of two of the Company's patents and seeking monetary and injunctive relief. This Tennessee lawsuit is a re-filing of a California patent infringement lawsuit against Nautique that was dismissed without prejudice on October 31, 2013. On November 1, 2013, Nautique filed for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming that it has not infringed the two patents identified in the original complaint in the Tennessee lawsuit. The Tennessee court has enjoined Nautique from maintaining the Florida lawsuit which is partially duplicative. Nautique has dismissed the Florida lawsuit to comply with the Tennessee court’s ruling. On December 13, 2013, the Company amended the Company's complaint to add another of its patents to the Tennessee lawsuit. All three patents in the case relate to the Company's proprietary wake surfing technology. On June 27, 2014, Nautique filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, requesting institution of an Inter Partes Review, or IPR, of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,539,897, one of the three patents at issue in the Tennessee litigation. The Company will file a response with the PTO addressing the allegations made in Nautique’s petition. Thereafter, the PTO will determine whether to institute the IPR. In the Tennessee litigation, the Court denied Nautique’s motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of Nautique’s petition for an IPR. The Court also set a trial date for the litigation of February 9, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously pursue the Tennessee litigation and the IPR to enforce and defend its rights in the patented technology. On February 6, 2015, the Company and Nautique entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Nautique Settlement Agreement") to settle a lawsuit filed by the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement by Nautique of three of the Company's patents. Under the terms of the Nautique Settlement Agreement, Nautique made a one-time payment of $2,250 and entered into a license agreement for the payment of future royalties for boats sold by Nautique using the licensed technology. The parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the patent litigation and jointly request the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to terminate the patent challenge. On February 17, 2015, the parties dismissed the patent litigation with prejudice and on February 25, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office terminated the inter parties review proceeding.

Commitments and Contingencies

Repurchase Commitments

In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions for sales generated from both the U.S. and Australia operating segments. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve and related statement of operations account accordingly. This potential loss reserve is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the original repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of goods sold in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss). No units were repurchased for the nine months ended March 31, 2015 or March 31, 2014. The Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of March 31, 2015 or June 30, 2014, respectively.

Contingencies

Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below under "Legal Proceedings," management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at March 31, 2015 (unaudited) or June 30, 2014 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

On October 31, 2013, the Company filed suit against Nautique Boat Company, Inc., or Nautique, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement of two of the Company's patents and seeking monetary and injunctive relief. This Tennessee lawsuit is a re-filing of a California patent infringement lawsuit against Nautique that was dismissed without prejudice on October 31, 2013. On November 1, 2013, Nautique filed for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming that it has not infringed the two patents identified in the original complaint in the Tennessee lawsuit. The Tennessee court has enjoined Nautique from maintaining the Florida lawsuit which is partially duplicative. Nautique has dismissed the Florida lawsuit to comply with the Tennessee court’s ruling. On December 13, 2013, the Company amended the Company's complaint to add another of its patents to the Tennessee lawsuit. All three patents in the case relate to the Company's proprietary wake surfing technology.

On June 27, 2014, Nautique filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, requesting institution of an Inter Partes Review, or IPR, of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,539,897, one of the three patents at issue in the Tennessee litigation. The Company will file a response with the PTO addressing the allegations made in Nautique’s petition. Thereafter, the PTO will determine whether to institute the IPR. In the Tennessee litigation, the Court denied Nautique’s motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of Nautique’s petition for an IPR. The Court also set a trial date for the litigation of February 9, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously pursue the Tennessee litigation and the IPR to enforce and defend its rights in the patented technology.

On February 6, 2015, the Company and Nautique entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Nautique Settlement Agreement") to settle a lawsuit filed by the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement by Nautique of three of the Company's patents. Under the terms of the Nautique Settlement Agreement, Nautique made a one-time payment of $2,250 and entered into a license agreement for the payment of future royalties for boats sold by Nautique using the licensed technology. The parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the patent litigation and jointly request the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to terminate the patent challenge.

On February 17, 2015, the parties dismissed the patent litigation with prejudice and on February 25, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office terminated the inter parties review proceeding.