Bill of sale

[pandos]

I have just bought a boat. The bill of sale recites that the sale is of 64 of 64 shares, that is in my view all of the boat...

I just looked at the previous sale contract which is for the entire boat,

However the bill of sale refers to 63 of 64 shares.

How can this make sense. A broker was involved in the previous sale.

Is there some custom of transferring less than the whole boat...?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Suppose it could be a typo.

Who owned the final share? Or maybe still owns? Is this boat registered on part 1?

 

[Tranona]

You need to go back to the previous change of ownership to see who owned the 1 share.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

You need to go back to the previous change of ownership to see who owned the 1 share.

Yes, that’s what I meant, hopefully all the paperwork ties up. There should be another bill of sale for the 1/64th.

 

[Tranona]

The BoS that established the split will be in the names of both owners so it is essential to determine that the other owner has transferred their one share - and it seems not to be the case here.

 

[Refueler]

I would hope that seller has forgotten to pass on the 1 share transfer document ...

If the 1 share is has not been transferred - then the later 64 of 64 BoS would possibly be invalid as there would only be 63 shares saleable.

You need to hot-foot back to seller and get it cleared up ...

But just to be sure - is the boat still Part 1 registered ?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

I would hope that seller has forgotten to pass on the 1 share transfer document ...

If the 1 share is has not been transferred - then the later 64 of 64 BoS would possibly be invalid as there would only be 63 shares saleable.

You need to hot-foot back to seller and get it cleared up ...

But just to be sure - is the boat still Part 1 registered ?

Yes exactly.

 

[pandos]

The BoS that established the split will be in the names of both owners so it is essential to determine that the other owner has transferred their one share - and it seems not to be the case here.

Yes that is a train of thought, on the other hand the contract refers to the entire vessel and to the vendors as owners...if a broker had not been involved I would have considered it to have been a mistake.

I have read that a boat on the ssr is not broken into shares and is sold as an entire object..

It will be interesting to see what they say about their representing themselves as full owners!..

I'll contact the PO and see what he has to say...

 

[wonkywinch]

When we bought our current boat, Mrs Winch and self are noted on the registration and bill of sale as both having ownership of all 64 shares. It might seem common sense to split half and half between a couple but IHT might be due if one should die and the other then had to purchase the other 32 shares.

The missing share in this case may be held by someone who retained a lien on the boat (money lender?).

 

[KompetentKrew]

Probably a typo. It doesn't matter unless you think someone's going to sue you for 1/64th the value of the boat, which I would think unlikely.

Is it registered at present? Do you plan to register it? SSR or Part 1?

What is the value of the boat?

When did the previous sale take place? The alleged 63/64th sale.

 

[Tranona]

Yes that is a train of thought, on the other hand the contract refers to the entire vessel and to the vendors as owners...if a broker had not been involved I would have considered it to have been a mistake.

I have read that a boat on the ssr is not broken into shares and is sold as an entire object..

It will be interesting to see what they say about their representing themselves as full owners!..

I'll contact the PO and see what he has to say...

It is the BoS that counts as this is the document that gives title to sell and you have only 63/64 of the title so you cannot sell. Equally the seller to you is in breach of contract as the contract is to sell the boat free of any claims on the title. The SSR is irrelevant as that has nothing to do with title. Part 1 does as it is a register of title and if it were on Part 1 you would be able to find out who has registered the title to the 1 share. I can think of situations where a second person might own just one share. For example it could be the wife/partner of the main owner who retains one share to prevent a sale without their permission. Extreme situation but not impossible. My last boat cost a lot of money (over £100k) and was bought out of our joint funs so my wife and I owned a half share each so it could only be sold if we both agreed.

There is clearly some background here which hopefully will be easy to sort. The broker does not get an out of jail card - he has a duty to you to ensure that the contract is met and the boat is free of any claims against it. So don't let him wriggle of the hook. It is his job to sort it out.

 

[KompetentKrew]

It is the BoS that counts as this is the document that gives title to sell and you have only 63/64 of the title so you cannot sell.

I respectfully disagree with this.

Part 1 is the only absolute record of boat ownership in the UK, just as the Land Registry is the only record of real estate ownership.

If the boat is not on Part 1 and the question goes to court then the ownership is a matter of the judge interpreting the documents.

If I found a cat in the street and took it home - I could sell it to you and give you a bill of sale, but that does not mean the cat was mine to sell. The original owner may come forward and go to court to demand the cat back A microchip in an animal is not proof of ownership, but it obviously helps convince a judge. Maybe the cat has no chip, but the original owner has screenshots dated 2015, "Missing cat - Tippy, distinctive black splotch on nose, see photos".

The bill of sale does not denote ownership, it's just one piece evidence to take into account. Is this Tippy in the photos, or is it a different cat?

Note that OP has a bill of sale indicating they purchased 64/64 of the boat - it's the previous bill of sale that is in question. If there's no dispute then it doesn't matter. Maybe it was just a typo.

OP could probably put the boat on the Part 1 register using the most recent bit of sale and then that would trump any previous claims.

 

[Irish Rover]

I have just bought a boat. The bill of sale recites that the sale is of 64 of 64 shares, that is in my view all of the boat...

I just looked at the previous sale contract which is for the entire boat,

However the bill of sale refers to 63 of 64 shares.

How can this make sense. A broker was involved in the previous sale.

Is there some custom of transferring less than the whole boat...?

As the BOS refers to 64/64 I would assume the boat is still on UK Part 1, or similar red ensign registry. If that's is so, talk to the Registry. In my experience they're very helpful. As @Sticky Fingers says there's likely to be another BOS for the final 1/64. Where ownership is split rather than joint UKSR require separate BOS from each owner.
Whatever you do don't rely solely the broker. I had a situations where a broker tried to sell me a boat from a sole owner, but when I dug into it I discovered it was owned jointly by a couple. The broker was uncoopuncooperative until I complained to his Association.

 

[Refueler]

Yes that is a train of thought, on the other hand the contract refers to the entire vessel and to the vendors as owners...if a broker had not been involved I would have considered it to have been a mistake.

I have read that a boat on the ssr is not broken into shares and is sold as an entire object..

It will be interesting to see what they say about their representing themselves as full owners!..

I'll contact the PO and see what he has to say...

SSR (Pt3) does not constitute an owners document ... it states that clearly on the doc.

At best it indicates 'keeper' ... like the Car Reg Doc.

 

[Refueler]

I respectfully disagree with this.

Part 1 is the only absolute record of boat ownership in the UK, just as the Land Registry is the only record of real estate ownership.

If the boat is not on Part 1 and the question goes to court then the ownership is a matter of the judge interpreting the documents.

If I found a cat in the street and took it home - I could sell it to you and give you a bill of sale, but that does not mean the cat was mine to sell. The original owner may come forward and go to court to demand the cat back A microchip in an animal is not proof of ownership, but it obviously helps convince a judge. Maybe the cat has no chip, but the original owner has screenshots dated 2015, "Missing cat - Tippy, distinctive black splotch on nose, see photos".

The bill of sale does not denote ownership, it's just one piece evidence to take into account. Is this Tippy in the photos, or is it a different cat?

Note that OP has a bill of sale indicating they purchased 64/64 of the boat - it's the previous bill of sale that is in question. If there's no dispute then it doesn't matter. Maybe it was just a typo.

OP could probably put the boat on the Part 1 register using the most recent bit of sale and then that would trump any previous claims.

I disagree with you and partly with T ...

The matter needs clarification from the Pt1 Registry .... if the boat has been removed from Pt1 ... then why the 64 / 64 BoS ..... there's no need for that sort of wording. A simple BoS would suffice.... assuming that the owner of the 1 share was cleared from ownership.

But the wording 64 / 64 is either seller trying to look clever and misunderstanding the share declaration and not still Pt1 - or boat is still Pt1 and needs to be clarified by Register.

People here can post all they like and say this and that ... the point is to contact Pt1 and clear it up from the registry properly. While making sure Seller / Broker are aware of their 'gaff' !!

 

[Tranona]

The DOT Bill of Sale form assumes shares of the boat are being transferred and there is a box to record the number of shares. If the shares are unequal 2 forms are required, one for each owner. If the ownership is joint (as my last boat) only one form is required but of course showing both owners and requiring both signatures to transfer.

The OP does not say whether the boat was/is actually registered.

 

[Tranona]

I respectfully disagree with this.

Part 1 is the only absolute record of boat ownership in the UK, just as the Land Registry is the only record of real estate ownership.

If the boat is not on Part 1 and the question goes to court then the ownership is a matter of the judge interpreting the documents.

If I found a cat in the street and took it home - I could sell it to you and give you a bill of sale, but that does not mean the cat was mine to sell. The original owner may come forward and go to court to demand the cat back A microchip in an animal is not proof of ownership, but it obviously helps convince a judge. Maybe the cat has no chip, but the original owner has screenshots dated 2015, "Missing cat - Tippy, distinctive black splotch on nose, see photos".

The bill of sale does not denote ownership, it's just one piece evidence to take into account. Is this Tippy in the photos, or is it a different cat?

Note that OP has a bill of sale indicating they purchased 64/64 of the boat - it's the previous bill of sale that is in question. If there's no dispute then it doesn't matter. Maybe it was just a typo.

OP could probably put the boat on the Part 1 register using the most recent bit of sale and then that would trump any previous claims.

I should have said "in this instance" as the boat does not appear to be registered, so the BoS is the primary document and it is at odds with the contract. The seller is potentially in breach of the contract for the reasons I suggested earlier.

The registry would not accept just the current BoS but would require at least the previous one so the inconsistency would be questioned.

 

[Refueler]

The DOT Bill of Sale form assumes shares of the boat are being transferred and there is a box to record the number of shares. If the shares are unequal 2 forms are required, one for each owner. If the ownership is joint (as my last boat) only one form is required but of course showing both owners and requiring both signatures to transfer.

The OP does not say whether the boat was/is actually registered.

OP has not said BoS is DoT ... RYA ..... Own design etc.

 

[Tranona]

OP has not said BoS is DoT ... RYA ..... Own design etc.

No he has not but if he does want to register it he will have to use the correct form. The fact that he talks about 64ths suggests it is a DOT form. Don't recall exactly what the RYA form says.

Edit Just checked No mention of shares on the RYA template, just sole or joint ownership. So pretty sure the OP has a DOT version.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

I respectfully disagree with this.

Part 1 is the only absolute record of boat ownership in the UK, just as the Land Registry is the only record of real estate ownership.

If the boat is not on Part 1 and the question goes to court then the ownership is a matter of the judge interpreting the documents.

If I found a cat in the street and took it home - I could sell it to you and give you a bill of sale, but that does not mean the cat was mine to sell. The original owner may come forward and go to court to demand the cat back A microchip in an animal is not proof of ownership, but it obviously helps convince a judge. Maybe the cat has no chip, but the original owner has screenshots dated 2015, "Missing cat - Tippy, distinctive black splotch on nose, see photos".

The bill of sale does not denote ownership, it's just one piece evidence to take into account. Is this Tippy in the photos, or is it a different cat?

Note that OP has a bill of sale indicating they purchased 64/64 of the boat - it's the previous bill of sale that is in question. If there's no dispute then it doesn't matter. Maybe it was just a typo.

OP could probably put the boat on the Part 1 register using the most recent bit of sale and then that would trump any previous claims.

My part 1 certificate specifically states that it is not proof of ownership!