chrishelen
N/A
+1....... pay up and put it down to experience.
Boatyard quality of work / payment dispute
- Thread starter mattnj
- Start date
+1....... pay up and put it down to experience.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Who on earth accepts a shoddy job and "puts it down to experience"?
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Two sides to any dispute, and if as some suggest the OP has acted incorrectly then he will hopefully have learned something. Two wrongs don't make a right and on the information so far it is impossible to say who is more right - or more wrong!
jfm
Well-Known Member
This has perhaps been done to death now and I haven't looked in for a few days. If you're bored of this don't even read what follows!
As others have said, there is little detail and we all make assumptions to fill in the gaps in the post. forums eh? As a general rule, posters asking these sorts of questions should give loads of detail. Often when replying I think to myself "I'm assuming this or that because you don't confirm it one way or t'other" but life is too short to type the detail of such assumptions, and OP was too lazy to clarify. For starters on this one, there is zero info on the terms of the contract but I've given up writing that point out longhand
On theft , what people say is right in principle, but those people are assuming there WAS a lien. In this case as I read it there was no lien*. Any lien ceases to exist once the debt is paid. When OP took the boat he was thought the debt was only 2/3rds paid, so he was acting as if stealing, but it then turned out to be the case that at the moment he took the boat, the yard hadn't fully performed the contract and the 2/3rds paid amounted to the full amount due to the yard. Thus, at the moment he took the boat the lien no longer existed, even though the fact of the poor workmanship etc had not yet been discovered. OP sort of had mens rea but he didn't commit any crime, if you get my drift. So, in my book, he wasn't stealing. Of course this all assumes the defects are as described and amount to a £500 loss, but in the absence of any more info that's what we have **.
Now, if he makes a new agreement with the yard that they should fix the problems and then he will pay the last £500, a new lien comes into existence when he gives them the boat. If he doesn't give them the boat to fix, no new lien comes into existence. THAT is what I was warning him about.
Reference all the links about giving the other side a chance to repair, they are generally accepted practices as to reasonable behaviour. They do not apply if you have reasonably lost confidence in your supplier to do a quality job, and there is nothing in the law requiring you to give bad workers a chance to put things right (despite what CAB and Which might say...)
*1. remember maritime liens stick to the boat even if taken from the yard, which in itself weakens the argument that there was theft, but is academic if the 2/3rds payment represent full payment of what was due. If no money was owed, even though OP didn't know that when he took the boat on the sunday, then there was no lien
2. I am ignoring any lien-like right or pledge that might have been created under the terms of the boat repair contract and am talking only of non contractual lien, for lack of info.
**Though I admit that I did confusingly mention above "deducting" from the £500, which suggests otherwise, sorry!
As others have said, there is little detail and we all make assumptions to fill in the gaps in the post. forums eh? As a general rule, posters asking these sorts of questions should give loads of detail. Often when replying I think to myself "I'm assuming this or that because you don't confirm it one way or t'other" but life is too short to type the detail of such assumptions, and OP was too lazy to clarify. For starters on this one, there is zero info on the terms of the contract but I've given up writing that point out longhand
On theft , what people say is right in principle, but those people are assuming there WAS a lien. In this case as I read it there was no lien*. Any lien ceases to exist once the debt is paid. When OP took the boat he was thought the debt was only 2/3rds paid, so he was acting as if stealing, but it then turned out to be the case that at the moment he took the boat, the yard hadn't fully performed the contract and the 2/3rds paid amounted to the full amount due to the yard. Thus, at the moment he took the boat the lien no longer existed, even though the fact of the poor workmanship etc had not yet been discovered. OP sort of had mens rea but he didn't commit any crime, if you get my drift. So, in my book, he wasn't stealing. Of course this all assumes the defects are as described and amount to a £500 loss, but in the absence of any more info that's what we have **.
Now, if he makes a new agreement with the yard that they should fix the problems and then he will pay the last £500, a new lien comes into existence when he gives them the boat. If he doesn't give them the boat to fix, no new lien comes into existence. THAT is what I was warning him about.
Reference all the links about giving the other side a chance to repair, they are generally accepted practices as to reasonable behaviour. They do not apply if you have reasonably lost confidence in your supplier to do a quality job, and there is nothing in the law requiring you to give bad workers a chance to put things right (despite what CAB and Which might say...)
*1. remember maritime liens stick to the boat even if taken from the yard, which in itself weakens the argument that there was theft, but is academic if the 2/3rds payment represent full payment of what was due. If no money was owed, even though OP didn't know that when he took the boat on the sunday, then there was no lien
2. I am ignoring any lien-like right or pledge that might have been created under the terms of the boat repair contract and am talking only of non contractual lien, for lack of info.
**Though I admit that I did confusingly mention above "deducting" from the £500, which suggests otherwise, sorry!
Last edited:
ianj99
Well-Known Member
So what is the situation if:
Both sides believed the work had been done AND the owner was told not to take the boat before paying the £500. As he took it anyway, there is surely a lien on the boat so the yard would be entitled to retrieve it?
We don't know for sure whether the yard did cause the damage, and the fact the OP seems to have hidden it from the yard, suggest he could be looking for a way to avoid paying the £500 and not have the boat repossessed by them.
If the yard take the other route and use the Small Claims court, then would any counterclaim for £500 not be weakened by his refusal to let them examine the defects and offer to repair them, or even negotiate a discount (and it doesn't sound like the repairs would justify a £500 discount) so he could either do the repairs himself or employ another company?
chrishelen
N/A
Yes but in whose opinion was the job shoddy?
This is the crux of the op. If you trawl through the posts you will find it is far from straightforward solution to this. A second opinion from an engineer will cost, then as the boat has been removed from the yard before any complaints were made makes any retrospective claims almost impossible. The yard even offered to fix any problems found if the guy takes the boat back, but he refused this offer it seems.
To save a lot of money and stress for the guy, pay up and move on.
Last edited:
DownWest
Well-Known Member
Apart from the lack of follow up from the OP about if they knew he was taking the boat out of the yard, there is the question af the yard's work actually causing damage. i.e. to the alternator. I did not see in the OP that he was hiding the boat, just that it was not going back. They need to talk... far better than any legal rangle
jfm
Well-Known Member
Getting a bit esoteric, but if both sides believed it was ok when it wasn't, they were both mistaken. Based on what was then believed, taking the boat breached the lien and looked (at least arguably) unlawful. But if what was then believed is later found to have been wrong, the correct facts must prevail, retrospectively so to speak. IE, if £500 of shortcomings are later discovered, then the belief there was a lien becomes known to be a mistake, and it is then known that there was never a lien, despite the fact the parties mistakenly thought there was. Get my drift?!
Yup. Forums eh?
Loads of things affect judges view of witnesses. Refusal to let examine would likely not be in point though. Normally you'd get a joint expert to report on the alleged defects under CPR35 and so the question of OP not letting yard examine the boat just wouldn't arise. If OP resisted a CPR35 expert I expect he would lose
pandos
Well-Known Member
I could not resist, I agree with JFM.
this thread can be summed up with....an old saying we used to use " If my aunt had B**Ls she'd be my uncle" the counter to which was no she would'nt, she'd be a B***ox of an aunt...."
ianj99
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that. (I was of course being a devil's advocate in speculating on this scenario: doesn't look like we'll ever know the truth)
skyflyer
Well-Known Member
I put it to you, members of the (forum) jury, that it is often the case that a person, having knowingly done something they know in their hearts that they should not have done, will seek to retrospectively justify it by canvassing for supporting views on an appropriate internet forum. If such supporting views are not forthcoming, the person in question frequently tends to avoid further posts on the topic.
A generalisation of course that does not necessarily apply in this case.
A generalisation of course that does not necessarily apply in this case.
Last edited:
RichardS
N/A
I put it to you, members of the (forum) jury, that it is often the case that a person, having knowingly done something they know in there hearts that they should not have done, will seek to retrospectively justify it by canvassing for supporting views on an appropriate internet forum. If such supporting views are not forthcoming, the person in question frequently tends to avoid further posts on the topic
Guilty M'lud
Richard
Floyd Raser
N/A
+1. Bring back hanging.
Jim@sea
Well-Known Member
I have deleted my comment.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
sadlerbob
Well-Known Member
I hope the OP takes this sound advice.
cryan
Well-Known Member
I had a job where I carried out a service on an outboard engine. I sent off the invoice to the customer then on the next Sunday I recieve a phonecall from them claiming the engine had failed due to my work. I went back the next day went through the whole thing and found an electrical plug on the module was in the wrong port? Replaced in in the proper port and it started up and ran properly. The owner accused me of putting in the wrong socket as none of his lot would have touched it. Unfortunately for him I had photographed all my work and even filmed the engine running to send the owner proof of the kill switch test. In the photos and the video you can clearly see the plug in the correct position and untouched. You could tell it was untouched as I had given the engine a clean up and then a new coat of protectant which you could see was un smeared. The unedited video even shows me putting the cover back on at the end of the job. I showed the owner all this and got the standard, "Oh well I don't know how that could have happened then?" My guess is so he could avoid the bill!
Anyway, I'm not doubting the OPs version of events but denying the yard access to rectify or at least witness the issues smells a bit like invoice avoidance and as a yard I'm sure they will have seen that plenty times in the past. If it is their fault I'm sure they'll fix it. Mistakes do happen. But the moral of the story is inspect the boat BEFORE you take it away.
Anyway, I'm not doubting the OPs version of events but denying the yard access to rectify or at least witness the issues smells a bit like invoice avoidance and as a yard I'm sure they will have seen that plenty times in the past. If it is their fault I'm sure they'll fix it. Mistakes do happen. But the moral of the story is inspect the boat BEFORE you take it away.
sighmoon
Well-Known Member
I'd call the yard and explain the problem and ask them how they suggest this is put right without requiring you to redeliver the boat.
I have (twice) been in the position of being billed for incomplete and therefore entirely useless work. In both cases I called the supplier and suggested the work be removed from the bill, and in both cases, they agreed to it without argument. Your situation is a little more complicated as damage was done, and there is a cost of rectification in there somewhere.
You don't want to leave bad relations in your wake - it's sods law that you get a problem and their yard is the only one you can limp in to.
I have (twice) been in the position of being billed for incomplete and therefore entirely useless work. In both cases I called the supplier and suggested the work be removed from the bill, and in both cases, they agreed to it without argument. Your situation is a little more complicated as damage was done, and there is a cost of rectification in there somewhere.
You don't want to leave bad relations in your wake - it's sods law that you get a problem and their yard is the only one you can limp in to.
Floyd Raser
N/A
Ouch!
As an ex-shop owner this touches a raw nerve. I fully relate to this. And everywhere I have worked since, there is an occasional outbusrt of bragging akin to Monty Python's 4 yorkshiremen sketch, where the participents try to outdo each other with tales of customer service profit.
Something goes wrong - buy a new one - put the old one in the box and return it for a refund. Etc etc. Working class or middle class it seems to be acceptable these days.
Sorry, off topic.
ghostlymoron
Well-Known Member
FOR GOD'S SAKE. How long is this nonsense going to continue?
I keep getting sucked back in because I hope that the latest post will say that the OP has done the obvious thing at last - he's been told often enough.
I keep getting sucked back in because I hope that the latest post will say that the OP has done the obvious thing at last - he's been told often enough.
pandos
Well-Known Member
It will [probably go on as long as peeps resurrect the thread by asking how long it will go on, and thus causing others to be sucked back in..... which could be until the end of time..........
Other threads that may be of interest
