Boatyard won’t release boat

[steveeasy]

But it’s possible that the yard bills were not fair and the owner disagrees with them. Perhaps for poor work, or them not caring for the boat etc

of course it is but the seller should in that case not tried to sell the boat unless the yard agreed and sued the yard for their potential breach of contract.
If the seller owes £4,000 hes gone. They will sell the boat to the potential buyer though and probably compromise. No reason why the potential buyer cant still sue the seller. Thats what I would do. do a deal, but lie low for a week or two.
Steveeasy

 

[mikefleetwood]

Interesting reading - but not sure why people seem keen to complicate it?

• As far as the yard is concerned, the seller still owns the boat. So, quite correctly are not prepared to the buyer remove it.
• As far as the buyer is concerned, the seller still owns the boat (so no dispute about that). As the agreed conditions to complete the sale have not been met.
• The seller still owes the yard some money. No reason to tell the buyer how much, as it's nothing to do with him.
• The buyer has given the seller 90% of the purchase price, but still doesn't own the boat, or have any rights to it.

The only question is why the buyer was prepared to part with so much money whilst agreeing that he won't own the boat until some vague conditions have been met?

 

[lusitano]

According to "Maritime" Law a debt partaining to a vessel belongs to that vessel , irrespective of ownership.
This particular debt is owed to the boatyard who could have the boat arrested if they chose to but in this case it,s not necessary as the boat is going nowhere without their consent.
I,m sure that the yard will be quite happy for this situation to trundle on for as long as possible or at least as long as the boats value exceeds the debt which, with storage fees, will be steadily increasing - to their advantage.
Considering the numbers being suggested beforehand, going down the legal route is a non starter as Maritime law is a niche area and in my experience can be very ,very expensive.
I,d be more inclined to take the seller aside and have a quiet but firm and clear - chat.

 

[Fanny Haddock]

I've not looked to see if one exists but perhaps there ought to be a sticky on the forum,

"How to buy a second hand boat"
​

given how many people come here for advice over specific models. What's really required is preemptive advice.

It's really futile to to the point of having a negative value to speculate, then argue over conflicting speculations. As Lusitano states, 99 times out of a 100 nothing is not going to go down a legal pathway because no one really benefits out of that except the lawyers, who specalise in making it take as long as possible & cost as much as possible. I liken legal disputes to two drunks having a fight until both realise that their lawyers have stolen their wallets, at which point they see the futility of the exercise & compromise as they should have done in the beginning.

It's sort of like a tax on obstinacy.

The consequences of that breaks down in numerous directions, the primary responses being, a) don't worry about it, b) talk to those involved.

Depending on (b), the (c) you don't write on the internet if it requires creative responses.

I wonder what the intention of handing over too much money ways? Was it a mistake in being overly keen for this specific boat?

 

[davidpbo]

Problem is buyer has paid 90%, and seller appears to have spent the money. What chance of getting that back if buyer wants to walk away?

 

[oldharry]

Problem is buyer has paid 90%, and seller appears to have spent the money. What chance of getting that back if buyer wants to walk away?

Agreed. In 60 years of changing boats every 3=5 years, I never paid a deposit larger than I could afford to lose if things went pear-shaped. I was lucky although a few deals did fall through I never lost money except tbe cost of a surveyor to confirm suspicions of major problems

 

[penberth3]

I wonder what the intention of handing over too much money ways? Was it a mistake in being overly keen for this specific boat?

It sounds like it got as far as a "done deal" - but the seller hadn't told the buyer about the debt.

 

[Refueler]

Interesting reading - but not sure why people seem keen to complicate it?

• As far as the yard is concerned, the seller still owns the boat. So, quite correctly are not prepared to the buyer remove it.
• As far as the buyer is concerned, the seller still owns the boat (so no dispute about that). As the agreed conditions to complete the sale have not been met.
• The seller still owes the yard some money. No reason to tell the buyer how much, as it's nothing to do with him.
• The buyer has given the seller 90% of the purchase price, but still doesn't own the boat, or have any rights to it.

The only question is why the buyer was prepared to part with so much money whilst agreeing that he won't own the boat until some vague conditions have been met?

The bullet points are exactly what I said right at the start ...

Until full purchase price has been passed over and signed for - ownership remains with seller.
So much if so if what if maybe has been posted that seems to ignore this fundamental point that ownerships has not been transferred fully.

And regardless of Sellers view on Yard Bill - it is a debt that must be resolved ... as well as Seller getting yard to accept release of boat to buyer to complete the sale.

Buyer is really nobody to the Yard ... and Yard has every right to refuse to divulge info as their contract is with seller.

 

[Refueler]

According to "Maritime" Law a debt partaining to a vessel belongs to that vessel , irrespective of ownership.
This particular debt is owed to the boatyard who could have the boat arrested if they chose to but in this case it,s not necessary as the boat is going nowhere without their consent.
I,m sure that the yard will be quite happy for this situation to trundle on for as long as possible or at least as long as the boats value exceeds the debt which, with storage fees, will be steadily increasing - to their advantage.
Considering the numbers being suggested beforehand, going down the legal route is a non starter as Maritime law is a niche area and in my experience can be very ,very expensive.
I,d be more inclined to take the seller aside and have a quiet but firm and clear - chat.

I would suspect that Maritime Law as such may not apply here as the boat no doubt is not Part 1 Registered and it is not involved in a Maritime Incident.

It is purely a Sale Item that has Yard debts to clear ....similar to it could be a Car in Long Term Storage ... or some other item that has a debt. Why consider it a Maritime event ?? Its not.

 

[Mark-1]

I would suspect that Maritime Law as such may not apply here as the boat no doubt is not Part 1 Registered and it is not involved in a Maritime Incident.

It is purely a Sale Item that has Yard debts to clear ....similar to it could be a Car in Long Term Storage ... or some other item that has a debt. Why consider it a Maritime event ?? Its not.

Agree. I think when people talk about maritime law in this context they're talking about 'ship arrest' which, according to the link posted earlier in this thread, is relevant under a small number of very specific circumstances. Not especially of interest to leisure boat sailors.

Leins seem to have nothing to do with maritime law.

...and in this case we haven't been told there's a lein, or a 'ship arrest'. Just a yard who quite reasonably aren't cooperating with moving a boat. (In fact we haven't really very directly been told that, and nobody's attempted to move the boat yet or even set a date they want a move to take place and been told it's not possible.)

Hope, it works out for the OP and I think it will. (Shame about the precious lost summer weekends, though.)

 

[lusitano]

Harbours, Docks & Piers Clauses Act 1847
This Act applies to marinas that were created by special Acts of Parliament and are therefore usually commercial or fishing ports.
The marina can arrest or detain any boat that is berthed or stored in the marina in respect of which there are outstanding fees (known as “rates” under the Act). The boat can be detained until the fees are paid or, in the event that they are not paid, the marina can sell the boat. The marina is entitled to do so without the need for authorisation from the court. The action is taken against the boat and not the owner so it does not matter if the current location of the owner is not known by the marina.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. There is definitely a procedure for arresting commercial boats/vessels. I think that only extends to the vessel connected with the dispute, but I'm not sure.

When my boat was in Milford Haven Marina there were c couple of others there with big signs on them saying "This boat has been seized for non-payment of mooring fees. Gerroff." or words to that effect.

 

[penberth3]

Harbours, Docks & Piers Clauses Act 1847
This Act applies to marinas that were created by special Acts of Parliament and are therefore usually commercial or fishing ports.
The marina can arrest or detain any boat that is berthed or stored in the marina in respect of which there are outstanding fees (known as “rates” under the Act). The boat can be detained until the fees are paid or, in the event that they are not paid, the marina can sell the boat. The marina is entitled to do so without the need for authorisation from the court. The action is taken against the boat and not the owner so it does not matter if the current location of the owner is not known by the marina.

Hang on, is the Marina concerned "created by a special Act of Parliament"? What you're quoting might not apply. I guess you're not a lawyer.

 

[penberth3]

When my boat was in Milford Haven Marina there were c couple of others there with big signs on them saying "This boat has been seized for non-payment of mooring fees. Gerroff." or words to that effect.

Yes, but seized under what powers? If it was the "arrest" being discussed the Act should be quoted at the top of the notice.

 

[JumbleDuck]

• As far as the yard is concerned, the seller still owns the boat. So, quite correctly are not prepared to the buyer remove it.

The yard's opinion doesn't matter!

• As far as the buyer is concerned, the seller still owns the boat (so no dispute about that).

We don't know that. It may be the case, and a few people have claimed it as fact, but without knowing exactly what the verbal (apparently) contract said, we just don't know.

As the agreed conditions to complete the sale have not been met.

• The seller still owes the yard some money. No reason to tell the buyer how much, as it's nothing to do with him.
• The buyer has given the seller 90% of the purchase price, but still doesn't own the boat, or have any rights to it.

It seems that the Bill of Sale has been signed, in which case ownership has presumably changed, even if the two parties still have some financial dealings outstanding.

As I posted above, I bought a flat years ago which was indubitably mine even though (a) the seller still owed a roofing firm some money and (b) only 80% of the purchase price had been paid. Without knowing the contract wording, it's all guesswork here.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Until full purchase price has been passed over and signed for - ownership remains with seller.

I thought ownership was transferred when the Bill of Sale was signed.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Yes, but seized under what powers? If it was the "arrest" being discussed the Act should be quoted at the top of the notice.

Can't remember, sorry.

 

[penberth3]

Can't remember, sorry.

OK. Already been mentioned above, the Maritime Law route isn't necessary. Just park something large in front of the boat until the money appears.

 

[Refueler]

I thought ownership was transferred when the Bill of Sale was signed.

Have you the Bill of Sale at hand to read it ?

Either of us could be right - depends on the wording. It could be signed with a clause of needing full monies paid before taking force ...

 

[lusitano]

Hang on, is the Marina concerned "created by a special Act of Parliament"? What you're quoting might not apply. I guess you're not a lawyer.

There are none so blind........................................amen!