Boatyard won’t release boat

[Mark-1]

Indeed but an interesting irrelevant point none the less

(If you find out the answer, my cat is dead!)

Can it.be proven that it's your cat? Maybe you lost it in a poker game but there's no written record? ?

I'm also intrigued about the land registry issue, given the law you posted. It's nearly 1am so I'm not going to google.

 

[Bru]

Since i don't like cats it's in a box ... and you know where that leads .....

 

[Refueler]

A verbal contract is not worth the paper it isn't written on.

Actually not quite true.

If the Verbal Contract is given with witnesses or the parties involved confirm to others the existence of such agreement - then it can be pursued as binding.

 

[Refueler]

It might be. This whole thing started because the boatyard and the OP seem to have different ideas about who owns the boat.

mmmm a little bit oversimplified I think.

As I read it ... Buyer pays 90% up front for a boat that he is told has no debts / lien. Seller agrees to cover yard fees till boat launches. Balance to be paid on successful launch and trial.
Yard has outstanding debt with seller and refuses to launch boat.

Then buyer alters situation by requesting boat to be lifted onto trailer for trucking out.

Yard still requires debt to be cleared.

We are told that Seller has signed a Bill of Sale based on RYA form.

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

All the rest in posts as I see it are conjecture and supposed on the part of others ..... with many drifting away from the basic facts as given by OP.

Nowhere has OP said he regards himself as full and only owner of the boat.

 

[Bru]

Question for the OP ...

Do you have an RYA form Bill of Sale unaltered and signed by the previous owner?

 

[Mark-1]

Nowhere has OP said he regards himself as full and only owner of the boat.

No but I expect if anyone asked the buyer and seller both would confirm that the OP is the owner now. If not the seller has to stump up an additional ~9k (on top of the ~4k he already owes) and the OP has to start hunting for a boat again, lose more precious summer weekend sailing *and* wait/chase for his ~9k back.

So it's really hard to see why either party would dispute ownership. (Which is probably just as well considering the nature of the agreement!) The idea the Yard could dispute ownership when everyone involved says the OP is the owner is comical. This isn't an ownership dispute.

In fact it's not a dispute at all. So far as we know all three parties agree with all the facts. It's just that the Seller needs to settle his yard fees, and he's not claiming otherwise.

 

[Refueler]

No but I expect if anyone asked the buyer and seller both would confirm that the OP is the owner now. If not the seller has to stump up an additional ~9k (on top of the ~4k he already owes) and the OP has to start hunting for a boat again, lose more precious summer weekend sailing *and* wait/chase for his ~9k back.

It's really hard to see why either party would dispute ownership. (Which is probably just as well considering the nature of the agreement!)

In technical - purist terms - I agree with you ..... but we have a situation where a balance is withheld against successful trial of the boat.
This makes one question the ownership.

Whether you pay 10% or 90% ... if you buy with a balance to pay after trial - then you are basically saying ... yes I want the boat, but want to test first before paying final money and taking it over.
As regards the Bill of Sale - I would assume that this will quote the 100% sale price ? It would then be a question of whether the BoS is valid if only 90% has been paid.

It is further complicated as I see it - by verbal agreements that as far as Yard is concerned are not their affair and they just want their bills cleared.

Let me put something here :

You are Yard boss and you have outstanding debt for a boat being in your yard. That boat then gets sold and seller is seen to purchase another boat. Most likely next boat is not in your yard (I assume this so may not be correct). Buyer comes along and asks for boat to be launched - all fees to be paid by seller !!

What would you do / say to buyer ?


I know if it was my boat and I was selling ... I would not agree ownership transfer until I get 100% of agreed price. If I was buyer - I would also accept that until 100% is paid - I would not be sole owner.

My feeling is that OP made an error in paying out 90% as 'deposit' in effect. This muddies the waters and leads to some of the posts we see in this thread. If he had paid the usual 10% 'deposit' - then we would be viewing this as a seller v yard matter only.

 

[Mark-1]

In technical - purist terms - I agree with you ..... but we have a situation where a balance is withheld against successful trial of the boat.
This makes one question the ownership.

Whether you pay 10% or 90% ... if you buy with a balance to pay after trial - then you are basically saying ... yes I want the boat, but want to test first before paying final money and taking it over.
As regards the Bill of Sale - I would assume that this will quote the 100% sale price ? It would then be a question of whether the BoS is valid if only 90% has been paid.

It is further complicated as I see it - by verbal agreements that as far as Yard is concerned are not their affair and they just want their bills cleared.

Let me put something here :

You are Yard boss and you have outstanding debt for a boat being in your yard. That boat then gets sold and seller is seen to purchase another boat. Most likely next boat is not in your yard (I assume this so may not be correct). Buyer comes along and asks for boat to be launched - all fees to be paid by seller !!

What would you do / say to buyer ?


I know if it was my boat and I was selling ... I would not agree ownership transfer until I get 100% of agreed price. If I was buyer - I would also accept that until 100% is paid - I would not be sole owner.

My feeling is that OP made an error in paying out 90% as 'deposit' in effect. This muddies the waters and leads to some of the posts we see in this thread. If he had paid the usual 10% 'deposit' - then we would be viewing this as a seller v yard matter only.

All problems that may occur in the future, but they haven't cropped up yet. As things stand everyone wants the boat out of the yard and in the buyers possession. It's just the yard want to use 'custody' of the boat as a lever against the "previous" owner. The seller doesn't dispute he needs to pay up, nor can he with any credibility. (And the only reason the previous owner wants the boat out of the yard is because it's been sold, if the sale falls through it might as well stay put.)

(Personally I think the idea that the Seller could convince the small claims court on balance of probability that the 90pc is a non-refundable deposit is laughable. But it doesn't matter, that problem may happen in the future but at the moment nobody is claiming the Seller is still owner and the OP has somehow forfeited his 'deposit'.)

The current problem isn't about ownership at all, or if it is, we haven't been told so.

 

[Refueler]

The current problem isn't about ownership at all, or if it is, we haven't been told so.

Agreed - but the typical path of forum thread has created that ......

The OP came here because basically seller takes 90% of sale price ... says there's no debts ... buyer wants to move boat - then finds out seller is not truthful and there are debts.

So I return to my questionable scenario :

"Let me put something here :

You are Yard boss and you have outstanding debt for a boat being in your yard. That boat then gets sold and seller is seen to purchase another boat. Most likely next boat is not in your yard (I assume this so may not be correct). Buyer comes along and asks for boat to be launched - all fees to be paid by seller !!

What would you do / say to buyer ? "

 

[Bru]

As regards the Bill of Sale - I would assume that this will quote the 100% sale price ? It would then be a question of whether the BoS is valid if only 90% has been paid.

Unless the wording of the RYA form Bill of Sale has been alerted, the boat legally belongs to the OP

(If the wording has been altered it's a legal minefield because bills of sale are legal documents defined by specific legislation)

If there is a contract between the buyer and the seller covering post sale actions and that contract was not honoured by both parties i guess the courts could and possibly would declare the Bill of Sale void and order the seller to return the monies paid to the buyer (and deal with the thorny issue of costs)

The simple fact is that the OP and the seller have seriously jumped the gun by completing a Bill of Sale before the sale has been completed - you shouldn't sign a Bill of Sale subject to survey, sea trials or any other conditions etc. The BoS should be the last step completing the deal

If the OP can confirm that the Bill of Sale is unaltered then in my view he's in a strong legal position. Unfortunately he's in a pretty weak practical position

 

[Mark-1]

Agreed - but the typical path of forum thread has created that ......

The OP came here because basically seller takes 90% of sale price ... says there's no debts ... buyer wants to move boat - then finds out seller is not truthful and there are debts.

So I return to my questionable scenario :

"Let me put something here :

You are Yard boss and you have outstanding debt for a boat being in your yard. That boat then gets sold and seller is seen to purchase another boat. Most likely next boat is not in your yard (I assume this so may not be correct). Buyer comes along and asks for boat to be launched - all fees to be paid by seller !!

What would you do / say to buyer ? "

I'd do exactly what the yard are doing. I'd dig my heels in and obstruct the removal of the boats as best I could in the hope the new owner/buyer puts some pressure on the old owner/seller.

If that failed, longer term I'd use the small claims court as a simple low risk way to recover the cash, but I don't think it's going to come to that.

 

[Caraway]

Pretty sure they have no legal right to detain the boat anyway. The OP hasn't mentioned a lein or any other legal justification - they're just physically not letting it go. (Well, we don't even know that, nobody's tried yet.)

If they want to seize property to the value of £4k then the easiest way to do that is to send bailiff's to the guys house and take portable stuff that's fast to dispose of. A boat is as much a liability as an asset could take weeks or months to sell. Especially since the ownership of the boat has changed. Why would the bailiffs get into that legal quagmire when they can just take stuff from his house?

In the interest of pedantry, it is a Lien

 

[Mark-1]

f the OP can confirm that the Bill of Sale is unaltered then in my view he's in a strong legal position. Unfortunately he's in a pretty weak practical position

It seems a dead cert to me that both yard and OP will get their cash/boat. It seems the seller likely has an address and assets.

The problem will be how long that takes and how much hassle and worry comes along with that. My gut feel is not too much. The quickest easiest way out for the seller is to hand over 4k so I'm pretty sure he'll find a way to do that.

Of course (say) five or six lost weekends at that height of the season is pretty miserable for the OP.

 

[Dellquay13]

Out of interest, has anyone looked at their marina contract and seen a clause that gives the marina the right to seize and/or sell a boat to cover financial losses? Does it include instances of change of ownership?

I've always just signed in the past, and wouldn't know where to find my copies now, but like Jumbleduck, I saw those Notices of Disposal for unpaid fees at Milford Haven. (To be fair, I vaguely recall those boats as being pretty much abandoned, and they haven't done it since.)
I have always been reasonably prompt in paying them since.

 

[Poignard]

Actually not quite true.

If the Verbal Contract is given with witnesses or the parties involved confirm to others the existence of such agreement - then it can be pursued as binding.

Do you think I don't know that?

JumbleDuck, in post #181, referred to an apocryphal saying attributed to Sam Goldwyn. I deliberately misquoted it for humorous effect, ie I made a joke.

Sorry you didn't get it. Next time I will try to remember to add a few grinning emojis to give you a clue.

 

[Mark-1]

In the interest of pedantry, it is a Lien

Pedantry, is always welcome but I can find both spellings online.

If I've got it wrong that's probably a useful reminder to readers that I have no relevant knowledge or qualification in this stuff, I'm just spouting my guesses and speculation as fast as I can type. ?

 

[Alfie168]

I dunno about anybody else, but I smelt something very "off" the moment I read that the seller couldn't settle his debts as he had spent the sale money on his new boat. He can be the nicest guy in the world......but.....actions speak louder than words.

 

[Mark-1]

I read that the seller couldn't settle his debts as he had spent the sale money on his new boat.

We don't even know that. Maybe he's got a ton of cash but he always settles his bills late. Maybe he spent it on coke and hookers? Maybe he donated it to an orphanage? Maybe he's just badly organized. Maybe he's got a savings account with delayed access. Maybe he's bought a 4 grand train set. We just don't know, nor does the OP. (Maybe it's sitting in the yard's account as we type.)

 

[Alfie168]

We don't even know that. Maybe he's got a ton of cash but he always settles his bills late. Maybe he spent it on coke and hookers? Maybe he donated it to an orphanage? Maybe he's just badly organized. Maybe he's got a savings account with delayed access. Maybe he's bought a 4 grand train set. We just don't know, nor does the OP. (Maybe it's sitting in the yard's account as we type.)

I'm not going back over 11 pages to look, but I'm fairly sure the OP said somewhere that was the explanation given to him by the seller, but I stand to be corrected. Actions still speak louder than words no matter how many "Maybes" you speculate there might be.

 

[Mark-1]

I'm not going back over 11 pages to look, but I'm fairly sure the OP said somewhere that was the explanation given to him by the seller, but I stand to be corrected.

I think the OP speculated that, he wasn't told that by the seller.