Boat Vibrations

[DERF]

A couple of weeks ago I have the boat out for usual servicing and a few mechanical tweeks and upgrades.

In the process and because the rubbers looked "pinched" and a little distorted, decided to change the cutlass bearings. So all the ancilliary stuff was removed the shafts slipped and the old bearings removed.

Now the boat needs imperial bearings so these were ordered from (*******) and sent in sealed boxes. New bearings fitted, shaftes, props/rudders replaced.

Lovely so boat goes back in the water...

First trip out, as I get out throught the lock at PS, noticed rather more vibration than I thought I remembered, but put it down to the usual "whats that noise/sound/feeling" when something is fixed... trip continues boat seems ok tracks through water ok... just my imagination..

Slowly get on to plane 18,20,25, seems ok but definately something amiss.. can feel vibration through floor..... throttle back and check shafts/ gearbox couplings etc but all ok.... off again 25knts, by 30 the vibration is very noticable... so throttle back to 22 knts and go look at the engines... port engine bouncing around on its mounts rather more than I think it should.

Get back to P.S. and have diver and engineer check the installation and props/rudder etc..all seem ok.

Only solution..... boat has to come out of the water..again.

Engineer working on it today and reports...

erm..... the port side has METRIC bearings fitted!!!! apparently the supplier has a batch of metric bearings that have been packed into imperial marked boxes... its happend before apparently! Incredible!!!!!

So who should pay for the lift/block/launch and labour?

Me, the engineer, or the supplier of parts?

 

[Its_Only_Money]

Guess it depends: If you ordered the bearings and asked the engineer to "fit these" then you should take up with the supplier (assuming the difference between metric/imperial isn't obvious/visible in your instance, you'll need to make up your own mind if the engineer should have measured/checked the bearings before fitting). If you engaged the engineer to supply and fit suitable bearings then you should take it up with him (he may take up with supplier but that is his problem).

 

[BrendanS]

If the supplier admits they have supplied metric before, their problem, send them the bill.

If the engineer knows the supplier have sent metric before, he should have checked first before fitting, send him the bill

If your source of information is from somewhere else, see how verifiable it is

 

[Sammo]

Derf

Sounds like an insurance job.
You have to claim on your insurance then sit back whilst your insurance claims off the engineers insurance (his public Liability) then they claim off the supplier (his insurance or otherwise)

Say nothing, don`t get involved, after all that’s what insurance is for.

............

 

[Its_Only_Money]

Really?? What clause would you make a claim under?

 

[sailorman]

[ QUOTE ]
Derf

Sounds like an insurance job.
You have to claim on your insurance then sit back whilst your insurance claims off the engineers insurance (his public Liability) then they claim off the supplier (his insurance or otherwise)

Say nothing, don`t get involved, after all that’s what insurance is for.

............

[/ QUOTE ]


So Unc.
do u think your car insurer's would do the same.
i dont think so, wot planet r u on /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[DERF]

Insurance Claim???

Why would this be covered by insurance? Surely its normal wear and tear and the responsibility of the owner of vessel.. no?

As for the parts they were ordered by engineer, so I guess it's down to him really to sort it out with the supplier...did he know the history? dunno, but he told me the whole story today, so I guess he's covering up or he didn't check before installing!

 

[Sammo]

Ok fair comment

So why do you not think it`s an insurance claim?

.........

 

[Its_Only_Money]

Because I can't immediately see how you instructing an engineer to carry out work and them getting it wrong is an insured risk under my policy - but if it is an insured risk under your policy it would be useful to know what the clause states.

 

[Sammo]

It`s the clause that gives you legal representation.

.........

 

[TigaWave]

On the Insurance issue as a supplier of bearings and other marine parts we are not covered under public or product insurance for cost of recall or replacement of parts and associated costs. We are covered if the part causes damage or loss to life or property.
I suggest that the paper trail in the ordering should be checked by the engineer, assuming he specified the correct part, at some point what was supplied was not what was asked for.
Get a copy of all the paper work if you can, orders invoices delivery receipts, but its really between the engineer and the supplier I would suggest.
But would assume that as its not covered by a standard business insurance if you have problems with getting it sorted and the costs involved it will need to be a claim against both parties and the court will allocate blame once it has seen the paper trail as evidence.
I would hate to be in that position, I hope it all gets sorted amicably and quickly.

 

[Its_Only_Money]

Yours must be different to mine, my wording only covers legal representation for defensive actions ie if someone claims against me.

I'd check your wording, I am surprised legal representation would be covered where there is no other insurance interest and it isn't defensive in nature.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

FWIW, I dont think you have a case because, for sure, the suppliers' terms of business will exclude consequential liability and their liability will be limited only to replacing the incorrect part. The best you can do, IMHO, is to ask them for some kind of goodwill gesture

 

[BrendanS]

terms of business have been overturned in court many times, and are practically worthless these days. Especially if there is proof they have delivered these parts incorrectly an mislabelled before, and it can be proven.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

OK, hotshot lawyor, on what basis are the terms of business going to be overturned and what is likely to be the allowable claim against the supplier?

 

[BrendanS]

I'm not a lawyer, but have written many multi (tens of millions) pound contracts in my time.
Some examples of overturning, awards, and precedents
http://www.iaccm.com/full.php?id=48
http://www.hamiltons-solicitors.co.uk/archive-docs/case-roundup2.htm
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:YT3...court&hl=en
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:uq4...court&hl=en
http://www.dickinson-dees.co.uk/publications/sitelines/sitelines-autumn2000.asp
There are many more easily available on the internet


Though it does work both ways eg
http://www.rpc.co.uk/main/default.asp?p=372&c=949

 

[BrendanS]

I'm not a lawyer, but have written many multi (tens of millions) pound contracts in my time.
Some examples of overturning, awards, and precedents
http://www.iaccm.com/full.php?id=48
http://www.hamiltons-solicitors.co.uk/archive-docs/case-roundup2.htm
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:YT3...court&hl=en
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:uq4...court&hl=en
http://www.dickinson-dees.co.uk/publications/sitelines/sitelines-autumn2000.asp
There are many more easily available on the internet


Though it does work both ways eg
http://www.rpc.co.uk/main/default.asp?p=372&c=949

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

With respect you have'nt answered my question. Why should Derf's loss not be considered a consequently liability in this case? None of your cases overturn the concept of exclusion of consequential liability just the definition of what might be defined as a consequential liability
And, no, I'm not a lawyor either but I'm interested in this for my own information. I own a company which supplies large items of construction plant and the consequential liabilities arising from the failure of one of these are potentially enormous so I'm very keen to see that all our bases are covered on the issue of consequential liability

 

[Its_Only_Money]

Before we get into a "my google search is bigger than yours" type debate it might be worth noting that the bearing supplier's terms of business may well be irrelevant, consequential loss limitations are usually upheld where there is another professional up the chain (in this case the engineer), who could be presumed to have had a duty of care and for eg ensured the bearings were correct at the time of fitting (by measuring them, checking for play etc etc - this will also entail considering if the bearings are marked or identified in any way as to their size etc).

Derf may even have no direct claim on the bearing supplier at all - if the engineer ordered the bearings then Derf's claim is on the engineer and nothing to do with the bearing supplier at all, irrespective of the bearing supplier's terms.

In short, not quite enough info to go on really.....

 

[Its_Only_Money]

[ QUOTE ]
...consequential liabilities arising from the failure of one of these are potentially enormous so I'm very keen to see that all our bases are covered on the issue of consequential liability

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there is no substitute for engaging a specialist lawyer (together with his PI insurance cover), to confirm your situation and terms for you.