A LEGAL DILEMMA???

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, as it is march, I would guess that the owner will be putting the boat back in the water sooner rather than later, so it would have been dewinterised whether you had come along or not, i.e. an expense he would have incurred irrespective of your requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think you can assume (or have any right to assume) that at any time, but especially not when the boat is for sale. Best broker's advice for serious selling is to remove all clobber, thorough clean inside and out, and leave on the hard. That way you don't end up with pointless 'trial sails', and the purchaser can see the hull condition before even talking to the broker. You are also more likely to get an offer since the cost of survey will not include a haul out.

By the way, back to the OP's problem of high moisture - I have come to the conclusion that the quantitative tests and the interpretations are for the most part utter bunkum, with conventional testing methods. Different surveyors - all self-proclaimed experts in moisture in hulls, of course - all give different opinions and their opinions will be so covered with caveats that you might as well ask the nearest barmaid. The yacht in question was very possibly sound - the same cannot be said of the surveyor who professed not to know how the hull got wet /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[gjgm]

I ve been and am still going through this bizarre process of buying a boat. All i can say is that from best (!) brokers and downwards, everyone seems to have the same understanding that if you wish to test/survey/inspect/make sea worthy a boat, the costs are down to the buyer. As a buyer, I found that weird, but that is not only the custom, but also whats written in the standard approved contracts. Now some say, @@@ to that, the seller should pay. Well, fine if he wants to go the extra mile to sell the boat, maybe he will service and antifoul it too, but he is under no obligation to do so.
So my understanding is that the custom and contract says the costs are down to the buyer. You may want to consider that £45 is worth it as I m sure the boat broking world is pretty small and gossipy, and i guess you are going to be dealing with brokers again...

 

[boatmike]

4 actually. I think the argument that this is "normal" relies on this being accepted custom and practice. To my knowledge it is not. Even if it were "custom and practice" without written terms of agreement or a contract that the buyer signs to say he has read and understands, it won't stand up in court. The buyer is not expected to know custom and practice and unless informed of such by the broker is not liable. The question here is simply "did he agree to pay this?" Thats why I asked if he signed anything. There is a tenuous argument that a verbal agreement could have been made beforehand without a signature but this does not seem to be the case as this chap seems quite honest and I believe from the tone of his post would pay up if he had agreed to do so. I cannot see any legal validity to posts to the contrary.

 

[boatmike]

Maybe so. But the clear legal case is that he has to agree beforehand. Custom and practice is no argument without a contract.

 

[gjgm]

but he says its through a broker, and i assume therefore that he had to sign a contract b4 his surveyor was allowed loose?

 

[bedouin]

Sorry - that is bad advice. You have a contract whether or not you signed anything. In fact I would recommend that a signed contract is much better protection than an oral agreement because then there is less scope for argument about what it does cover.

That is especially so when putting a deposit on a major purchase as you could legally be responsible for a whole host of costs if you pull out

 

[bedouin]

[ QUOTE ]
To me that is like selling a car and if the prospective purchase doesn't like it - charging him for the service you had done. Am I legally liable or are the brokerage and owner trying it on??? Please can anyone help. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
If I put a deposit on a car and then pulled out I would expect to pay for the service the dealer had just done on it - if that was a part of the deal.

If I were you I would want to ask more questions of your surveyor - your report of his findings seems very strange and not necessarily grounds for walking away from the purchase. e.g. No one would really expect significant drying of the hull from just 4 months on the hard in a very wet English winter - so if the surveyor is saying that he would I would question that

 

[Flossdog]

Like most people, I haven't bought many boats but my last boat was serious money so I used the services of the RYA recommended solicitor. The fee was very reasonable (half the surveyor's fee) and glad to say that everything went smoothly. However, it was good to know that I had legal guidance through the whole process.

 

[pandos]

Whether or not there was provision in a contract for you to pay the costs,when the full deposit was returnd there was an implied agreement that the contract was discharged and thus there were no further duties or benefits due to either side.

If you look at the excerpt from the contract quoted in one of the previous posts you can see this logic. in plain english it says, ...the deposit is returned in full only when all costs that the prospective buyer is liable for have been paid ... if you have your deposit you must have paid all the costs already.???

Nothing wrong with asking a guy to pay up the £49 but if you were to agree that you were due to pay this is there another charge lurking.

My advice... ignore it. Or write to them telling them that they have mistakenly billed you and that you see yourself as having no obligation, nor do you have any intention of paying this charge.

Use the above advice,or not,entirely at your own peril.

 

[fireball]

[ QUOTE ]
If I put a deposit on a car and then pulled out I would expect to pay for the service the dealer had just done on it - if that was a part of the deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite a direct comparison - as the car is worth more for the service the dealer has just done on it....

If, however, you were looking at a car and wanted to take it for a test drive, you would not expect to pay for the new tires required as the old ones were illegal ... or the oil top up needed for the engine as it was leaky ...

Obviously everyone here (except me) is an expert on moisture content ... if I've paid a reputable (I hope!) surveyor to give me an opinion on the vessel I'm going to take his advice as to the state of the boat in general - and moisture levels within expected boundaries ...
Our surveyor didn't tell us the actual readings he got as he said they were meaningless without understanding the parameters in which they were read (in our case - shortly after a lift out - so are expected to be higher).

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
Our surveyor didn't tell us the actual readings he got as he said they were meaningless without understanding the parameters in which they were read (in our case - shortly after a lift out - so are expected to be higher).

[/ QUOTE ]If you have the report to hand, could you quote here exactly what advice the surveyor did give re your moisture (verbatim)?

 

[bedouin]

[ QUOTE ]


Not quite a direct comparison - as the car is worth more for the service the dealer has just done on it....


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - but it was the original poster's comparison not mine /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

While we can't all be experts on things like moisture levels I would expect anyone looking to buy a boat to take a reasonable interest in anything the survey throws up. No second hand boat will ever get a totally clean bill of health from the surveyor so the prospective purchaser needs to understand the implications of any matters raised by the survey.

I for one would not necessarily regard the issues reported by the poster to be grounds to walk away if that was all there was wrong

 

[duncan]

everything rests on 'if that was part of the deal' in your response.

OP - there wasn't a deal

suggestion from others that there is a standard practice - others that it's not standard enough.

I'm with the latter - individual circumstances will dictate the appropriate division of costs (and risk of costs) - for example getting a boat relaunched and de winterised for such in November could be significantly different from March/April if the seller is still using the boat but not much different if he's no berth and never plans to use it again.

A polite ' I'm sorry but this wasn't discussed or agreed to........' would be my response.

 

[fireball]

It was years ago! I don't think the report said anymore than moisture levels were within expected limits ...

We hung around for the lift out and watched him do the readings - which was when he'd said they were probably meaningless (to us) as raw data ...

 

[cliff]

So the seller has got the engione "de-winterised" for free and will no doubt cgharge teh next prospective buyer for another "de-winterisation".

If any seller presented his boat to me as a prospective buyer in such a condition I would walk away - there are so many boats for sale there is no shortage of choice - anyone who cannot be bothered to make their vessel "ready for sea" is not worth doing business with IMHO.

No mention of the value of the sale but paying 6~8% commission I would expect the broker to absorb the costs of presenting the boat in a "ready to go" state - a boat at say £100K the broker picks up £8K for what? a couple of hundred quid advertising?. (if even that)
--------------------

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
sailroom <span style="color:red">The place to auction your previously loved boatie bits</span>

 

[Aja]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if you are referring to me there ... I would question a £49 charge for re-winterising an engine ... in March ... (it may be valid ... thats why I'd question it!) ..

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect the problem may be in the term "re-winterising".

The vendor may not be in the position to put the boat back into commission for any number of reasons we are not aware of, therefore, if the boat was sitting de-commissioned and the vendor then payed to have the boat commissioned for a survey, then yes, I would expect the prospective purchaser to pay to have the boat put back to its original position. The boat may never be launched again by the vendor, he may be suffering ill-health. No one knows the true position therefore assumption may not be made on whether it is a con to ask for money to re-winterise the engine in March.

I would pay the money owed.

Donald

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
So the seller has got the engione "de-winterised" for free and will no doubt cgharge teh next prospective buyer for another "de-winterisation".

[/ QUOTE ]You have no evidence to support that. A boat might be owned by someone who can't use it for health reasons, part of the estate of a deceased person, or anything. It is very sad that you should jump to such an outrageous inference.

[ QUOTE ]
If any seller presented his boat to me as a prospective buyer in such a condition I would walk away

[/ QUOTE ] Fine, as long at that doesn't put you in breach of contract.

[ QUOTE ]
anyone who cannot be bothered to make their vessel "ready for sea" is not worth doing business with IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]A lot of boats are sold with known defects and buyers negotiate the price to reflect the condition. Not all boats are seaworthy or even launchable at the time of sale.
[ QUOTE ]
No mention of the value of the sale but paying 6~8% commission I would expect the broker to absorb the costs of presenting the boat in a "ready to go" state - a boat at say £100K the broker picks up £8K for what? a couple of hundred quid advertising?. (if even that)

[/ QUOTE ]Apart from that being a gross misstatement of the fact of brokers' costs, if you are the purchaser it is none of your business. The vendor pays the broker as his agent. If you are selling a boat you are free to do it as you please but as a buyer, you have to realise that the boat is someone else's property and they are not going to let you trample all over them (or their boat) on your own terms.

 

[fireball]

I think give and take on both sides is needed ...

As a purchaser, you wouldn't expect to have to pay for the boat to be cleaned prior to viewing (or afterwards unless you really are a messy bugger!)
As a seller, you wouldn't expect to have to pay for specific tasks requested by the purchaser above your normal maintenance costs.

 

[TimDaniel]

Dear oh dear! .... life's too short .... does anybody here ever get time to go sailing? Maybe the guy who started the discussion ought to consider taking up golf instead!

 

[fireball]

[ QUOTE ]
consider taking up golf instead!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yer - but then the club will want paying for the replacement filter needed when he wants a cup of coffee just as the barman has cleaned up... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

As for time to go sailing ... that's a weekend job atm! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif