• REMINDER - COVID-19

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as YBW, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health and liberty is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

    Users who are found to promulgate FAKE NEWS on the forum in regard to this issue, intentional or otherwise, may find their access terminated. It is your responsibility to provide references to bona fide sources.

    FAKE NEWS, in this regard, is that which is posited by organisations, media, etc., that is repeated on the forum, or used to support personal opinion/hypothesis posted by users - FAKE NEWS is not necessarily the personal opinion/hypothesis being posted in itself, any issues with such should be challenged respectfully.

Smelly X-Boat - who will win?

anoccasionalyachtsman

Well-known member
Joined
15 Jun 2015
Messages
2,868
Sorry, I actually meant to put in a link but had browsed incognito with no history saved. I'd downloaded the document and read it a while after finding it.

I had to search again and remembered seeing it on the same page as "Vardey V Rooney":D

You will find it listed here with a link to the case details and then this document.
I can't imagine that the defendant's querying the validity of video conferencing will have done them any favours in the judge's eyes.
 

pvb

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
41,773
Location
UK East Coast
Damages. A consumer can claim damages, which will generally equate to the cost of repair or replacement of the goods. They may also be able to claim compensation for damage caused by faulty goods (for example, where a washing machine leaked). If buyers have accepted the goods, their only remedy is damages.

You can sue under the Consumer Protection Act for compensation, death, personal injury and damage to private property, providing the amount of personal injury or damage to property is valued at £275 or more.

Who is liable for the injury/damage caused by the defective product?

The ‘producer’ is the person primarily liable for any damage caused by a defective product. The producer will include either the person who manufactured it or, if the product has not been manufactured, the person who abstracted it or processed the product, such as in agricultural produce. In addition to the producer, any person who puts his name on a product or holds himself out as being the producer of the product, will be liable. In the event of the product being manufactured outside the EU, the person who imported the product into the EU will be liable. The supplier will also be liable if the supplier fails to respond to a request to identify the producer of a defective product which they then, in turn, supplied.
Sorry, this isn't relevant.
 

pvb

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
41,773
Location
UK East Coast
Sorry, I actually meant to put in a link but had browsed incognito with no history saved. I'd downloaded the document and read it a while after finding it.

I had to search again and remembered seeing it on the same page as "Vardey V Rooney":D

You will find it listed here with a link to the case details and then this document.
Thank you.
 

ip485

Well-known member
Joined
13 Feb 2013
Messages
1,286
Much as expected the claim is also against the manufacturer in Denmark.
 

Concerto

Well-known member
Joined
16 Jul 2014
Messages
2,801
Location
Sail on the Medway, Kent from Chatham Maritime Mar
I saw something about 2017 and sea trial in July 2018 and assumed that was the purchase date. It seems that they claim the original contamination was caused by bacteria present in the Haderslev estuary, where the boat was manufactured. Perhaps that's why X-Yachts in Denmark are involved.

It appears that the purchase date was actually 2009 and the boat is a lot older than I thought. References to price are all in Euro but that doesn't mean they dealt with X-yachts. My invoices from 2009 are in GBP although Jeanneau prices were in Euro and the dealer had insurance against a change in rate.
I do not believe the date of 2009 is correct as the X-yacht 4.3 according to Yachting World was only tested in May 2017 as a new design, so your post #33 is correct this is a typo. Also if it was 2009, then the claimant would be out of the time limit to enter a claim to return goods.

The High Court ruling was interesting as it allows a limited number people to make submissions to the court via Skype from outside the UK. We now hav e to await the result of the hearing starting on 30 November.
 

ip485

Well-known member
Joined
13 Feb 2013
Messages
1,286
The claim arises from alleged defects in the Silver X, a yacht supplied by the defendants to the claimants in May 2009. The issues are: on what terms the claimants contracted to buy the yacht; whether ownership transferred; if so, on what terms; whether the yacht was defective; whether the claimants are entitled to reject her; whether they have validly done so; whether they are entitled to damages; and if so, in what amount. The claim is for upwards of €500,000.

I would have thought this sets out how the claim arose. Note the yacht was supplied by the defendants in the plural.

It would seem both were parties to the contract.

I suspect that this has everything to do with the normal commercial arrangement whereby X-Yachts would have provided certain guarantees or warranties, either implied or specific that the yacht was fit for purpose and redress is now sought from their agent and them that it was not fit for purpose.

The rudder I suspect is the key element, but it is known that certain combinations of materials are far more likely to result in the accumualtion of bacterial slimes and moulds in the fresh water system.

Of course I have no idea and am not specifically making any claim as to whether or not this is true of X-yachts.
 
Last edited:

Mistroma

Well-known member
Joined
22 Feb 2009
Messages
3,575
Location
Currently in Scotland, boat in Greece (Ionian)
I do not believe the date of 2009 is correct as the X-yacht 4.3 according to Yachting World was only tested in May 2017 as a new design, so your post #33 is correct this is a typo. Also if it was 2009, then the claimant would be out of the time limit to enter a claim to return goods.

The High Court ruling was interesting as it allows a limited number people to make submissions to the court via Skype from outside the UK. We now hav e to await the result of the hearing starting on 30 November.
Thanks for the information about the model in question, it does seem likely that the court meant to write May 2017. It's not unusual to agree to purchase and await delivery the following year, especially with a new model. My current boat was ordered and built in 2008 for delivery in 2009 as the new 2009 model. It did seem an unlikely typo, 2009 instead of 2017.

I did notice the restrictions on number and also threat of prosecution for recording or making screenshots of the proceedings. However, you can connect a device to additional screens allowing non-authorised parties to simply view the proceedings.
 
Top