Boatyard won’t release boat

JumbleDuck said:
How would he find that out, though? No yard with a hint of understanding of GDPR would tell him anything about another customer's bills and this one won't even say what bills have been run up since the "sale" took place.
Click to expand...
The sale has not yet taken place as the terms of the contract have not been met. It would be perfectly normal when doing due diligence to ask the yard if there were outstanding bills. Exactly the sort of thing a broker would do, and is the advice given in all the how to buy and sell boats. If the seller did not settle the bills direct, the broker would settle them out of the proceeds of the sale. The problem for the OP is that he has already paid 90% of the sale value to the seller and no longer has any control.
 
Bru said:
If the boat wasn't free of encumberances, it would give the buyer a legal route to demand his money back or force the seller to settle the encumberances. Or to put it another way, the buyer could void the sale, after the fact, as the seller would be in breach of contract. It would not, i think, give the seller a mechanism to void the sale as the buyer would not be in breach of contract

Back to my point ... that Bill of Sale is absolutely crucial to the whole matter although imo it's only crucial in persuading the boatyard to deal with the OP because i strongly suspect the seller, being nicely in pocket and with a new toy to play with, will never actually get around to finalising matters unless legally forced to do so and that's aggravation the OP doesn't need

Get the yard to quote a sum to release the boat (in writing and get a receipt), cough up, get hands on boat, put it down to experience
Click to expand...
You are right in that the BoS could play a key role in the next stage, but to be clear it is nothing directly to do with the contract. It is only the record of transfer of title, the transfer of the boat is governed by the contract. The way the BoS has been used here is essentially as a receipt for the first payment and as such is evidence that the buyer has a 90% interest in the boat, but he does not and cannot take possession of the boat until the contract is complete and he has paid the final 10%. Normally the BoS on a used boat is signed on the day of completion when all the conditions of the contract are met. However as I explained several times giving at least 3 concrete examples from my own experience it does not have to be, and for practical reasons is often signed well in advance of completion. There was a 6 week gap in my last purchase between getting title to the boat and taking possession while the seller completed his side of the contract (commissioning fitting extras etc).

If the seller defaults then there are at least 2 who will have competing claims over the boat - the yard and the OP. It is the strength of these two claims in law that would form the major part or my hypothetical 2500 word essay. There may well be other issues with the seller before getting to that stage because the contract is silent as to what happens if he is in breach, so I would expect some discussion about the remedies the buyer has against the seller.

As I said, I don't have the answer off the top of my head, but I think these are the issues. However we are not there yet and the OP is advised to do every thing he can to get the seller to pay the bills and complete the contract.
 
Tranona said:
The sale has not yet taken place as the terms of the contract have not been met.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe. The question of "who owns the boat" doesn't seem to have a satisfactory answer if a Bill of Sale has been signed. We don't know if the seller said "I'll pay the bills after you've bought her" or "I'll pay the bills until you have bought her", both of which are perfectly possible.

It would be perfectly normal when doing due diligence to ask the yard if there were outstanding bills. Exactly the sort of thing a broker would do, and is the advice given in all the how to buy and sell boats.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the broker works for the seller and is therefore (with appropriate authority) able to get information relating to the seller. The buyer can't. Any anyway, there isn't a broker, so what one might have done is all a bit irrlevant.

The problem for the OP is that he has already paid 90% of the sale value to the seller and no longer has any control.
Click to expand...

"in the absence of any further word from the OP nothing has yet gone wrong"
 
JumbleDuck said:
I don't think he started this thread to tell us it was all going swimmingly!
Click to expand...
Nobody has said it is, least of all me. But the basic issue as I keep on saying is simple - the seller has to complete his side with one simple action - pay the yard bills so the buyer can satisfy himself the boat is OK, pay the last 10% and take possession.

To answer your other questions, yes it is unclear who has the best claim over the boat. My view is that the seller has the best claim because he has not completed his part of the contract and also has possession. The buyer clearly has an interest because he has paid 90% and has a BoS showing his interest, but he too does not have a full claim because the contract is not complete. The Yard may have a claim because of the unpaid bills.

A broker would do exactly the same if he were acting for the buyer as many do. He has a duty of care and part of that is carrying out due diligence. That is what you are paying him for. Even if he is acting for the seller he still owes a duty of care to the buyer.

Nothing has gone wrong in law until one party defaults. Does not mean there are no problems in getting to the completion stage.
 
Last edited:
Tranona said:
........As I said, I don't have the answer off the top of my head, but I think these are the issues. However we are not there yet and the OP is advised to do every thing he can to get the seller to pay the bills and complete the contract.
Click to expand...

I guess the boatyard has already done this without success re: its own bill. It doesn't look good for the OP.
 
Tranona said:
Nobody has said it is, least of all me. But the basic issue as I keep on saying is simple - the seller has to complete his side with one simple action - pay the yard bills so the buyer can satisfy himself the boat is OK, pay the last 10% and take possession.
Click to expand...

But the seller obviously isn't going to do that.
 
Tranona said:
Nobody has said it is, least of all me.
Click to expand...

"in the absence of any further word from the OP nothing has yet gone wrong"

To answer your other questions, yes it is unclear who has the best claim over the boat. My view is that the seller has the best claim because he has not completed his part of the contract and also has possession. The buyer clearly has an interest because he has paid 90% and has a BoS showing his interest, but he too does not have a full claim because the contract is not complete. The Yard may have a claim because of the unpaid bills.
Click to expand...

Thanks - that's clear and interesting.
 
I have to disagree with you Tranona, the RYA form Bill of Sale is perfectly explicit - it legally transfers the the boat to the transferee (aka the buyer in this case).

As writ there are no caveats, no conditions, no shares. There is no provision for a provisional sale, nor for a partial transfer of ownership. Once signed by both parties the transferee legally owns the boat. Full stop. And I'm absolutely confident the courts would see it that way

The RYA form cannot be signed, by both parties, in advance of the transfer (well it could but it shouldn't be!) because as writ once both parties have signed the deal is done (it's not unusual, and our experience has been thus, for the seller to sign the bill of sale and leave it with the broker. The broker then witnesses the buyer(s) signature once they have confirmed that the funds are in their holding account)

Whatever may have been agreed verbally, if the OP has an unaltered, signed and witnessed RYA form Bill of Sale he owns the boat unless and until somebody proves otherwise (and again imo the courts would most likely find in his favour if it was disputed - a written contract beats a verbal contract and the BoS is a written contract)

(It isn't the only legal form bill of sale, and indeed we've used a different form in the past which catered for the transfer of shares in 64ths, per maritime convention)
 
penberth3 said:
But the seller obviously isn't going to do that.
Click to expand...

He obviously is. (Has?)

If the seller doesn't pay 4 grand voluntarily he's going to be paying 13 grand through a very painful process. And then he'll still have to try to sell his boat again and pay yard fees until it's sold. For the seller paying the yard fees and getting shot of the boat is critical.

My reasoning is: The small claims court is a common sense process - it is not going to believe the 90pc was a non-refundable deposit that is forfeit if the boat doesn't end up with the buyer due to the actions of the seller. So if the sale doesn't go through seller is gonna be paying ~9k back to the buyer. The 4k yard fees are the seller's to pay whatever happens.

If the small claims court gets involved and property starts getting seized it won't be the boat. It will be portable stuff that can be sold fast through auction. Probably cars would be the first port of call. A boat is a liability as much as it's an asset. Especially if there's some doubt over ownership. (If bailiffs did want to seize a boat it would the the other boat, which is worth more and there's no obvious doubt over ownership.)

There are plenty of ways this could go wrong and the OP was right to be a bit jumpy, but everyone involved wants this sorted and the boat out of the yard, so that's my bet on the likely outcome. It's probably already happened.

(^^^^^^^^ All my own poorly informed conjecture!)
 
Last edited:
Bru said:
I have to disagree with you Tranona, the RYA form Bill of Sale is perfectly explicit - it legally transfers the the boat to the transferee (aka the buyer in this case).

As writ there are no caveats, no conditions, no shares. There is no provision for a provisional sale, nor for a partial transfer of ownership. Once signed by both parties the transferee legally owns the boat. Full stop. And I'm absolutely confident the courts would see it that way

The RYA form cannot be signed, by both parties, in advance of the transfer (well it could but it shouldn't be!) because as writ once both parties have signed the deal is done (it's not unusual, and our experience has been thus, for the seller to sign the bill of sale and leave it with the broker. The broker then witnesses the buyer(s) signature once they have confirmed that the funds are in their holding account)

Whatever may have been agreed verbally, if the OP has an unaltered, signed and witnessed RYA form Bill of Sale he owns the boat unless and until somebody proves otherwise (and again imo the courts would most likely find in his favour if it was disputed - a written contract beats a verbal contract and the BoS is a written contract)

(It isn't the only legal form bill of sale, and indeed we've used a different form in the past which catered for the transfer of shares in 64ths, per maritime convention)
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you only acquire the goods (boat) on completion of the contract - and the OP has not achieved that yet. The BoS is just a convenient way of recording the transfer of title, originally for registration because it allows the recording of more than one share in the title - my boat's title is shared - but is not essential if the title is not registered. The MCA or RYA models are worded in the way they are because debts historically can be attached to boats, as can mortgages and the seller is self declaring that none of these apply. As I said in post#306 it is wise to have an independent check that the seller is telling the truth. Much of the potential problem for the OP is that he did not do these checks before paying the money. Of course the seller seems to have lied in signing the BoS, but if the contract goes to completion it is no longer a lie.

As I explained BoS are often signed at different times from completion for pragmatic reasons, and would guess very common now after a period when many sales are taking place with the parties never meeting and paperwork handled by post.

Earlier in this thread you will find a blow by blow account of the last 2 new boats I have bought and the last used one I sold. In all three the BoS was signed at a different time from the completion of the contract and all perfectly valid. The OP still does not have possession of the boat, nor full title because his contract with the seller requires him to pay the final 10% on completion. In other words the terms of the contract override the BoS. The OP does, however have a good claim against the boat given that he has paid 90% of it. BoS however is NOT the contract - it is transfer of title. The contract is the agreement between the parties, whether in writing or not.

Just to add to potential problem, the OP cannot remove the boat because potentially the Yard has a claim against the boat and in practical terms has the means to prevent its removal. Post#303 suggests what issues might be raised should the seller default, or indeed the buyer try to take possession, key of which is that 3 parties potentially have claims against the boat.

The best the OP can do (or more likely already has) is to get the seller to keep his side of the bargain .
 
I continue to disagree (although i understand your point, i just don't agree with it)

The critical point is that the RYA Bill of Sale form *explicitly* states that ownership has been, not will be or might be, *has been* transferred (it really *cannot* be interpreted any other way)

The Bill of Sale *is* a contract. A written contract signed by both parties and witnessed. It is also routinely accepted as proof of ownership and indeed is widely held to be the only unequivocal proof of ownership of an unregistered vessel

Yes, either buyer or seller might attempt to dispute that transfer on the basis of some other verbal agreement but i maintain that the courts would rule that an RYA form Bill of Sale is clear and unequivocal evidence of ownership and it would be up to the party contesting that to prove otherwise to the court's satisfaction
 
Bru said:
I continue to disagree (although i understand your point, i just don't agree with it)

The critical point is that the RYA Bill of Sale form *explicitly* states that ownership has been, not will be or might be, *has been* transferred (it really *cannot* be interpreted any other way)

The Bill of Sale *is* a contract. A written contract signed by both parties and witnessed. It is also routinely accepted as proof of ownership and indeed is widely held to be the only unequivocal proof of ownership of an unregistered vessel

Yes, either buyer or seller might attempt to dispute that transfer on the basis of some other verbal agreement but i maintain that the courts would rule that an RYA form Bill of Sale is clear and unequivocal evidence of ownership and it would be up to the party contesting that to prove otherwise to the court's satisfaction
Click to expand...

That's all clear on ownership but it doesn't solve the problem. The seller has done a runner with the money. The buyer has lost his 90% "deposit".
 
penberth3 said:
That's all clear on ownership but it doesn't solve the problem. The seller has done a runner with the money. The buyer has lost his 90% "deposit".
Click to expand...

It does solve the problem if the OP can prove he legally owns the boat!

If so, he can legitimately forget about the seller and retain the 10% to partially offset the cost of settling the bill with the boatyard *and* he has leverage to persuade the boatyard to deal with him instead of fobbing him off

The legal niceties are neither here nor there. His best hope and least worst outcome is to get possession of the boat with the least possible expense. That Bill of Sale, given the wording used on the RYA form (and it is that specific wording which matters, not comments about bills of sale in general), is, i believe, his sledgehammer to crack this nasty little nut
 
Tranona said:
Boat needed work including AF - so not in "sailaway" condition. 10% held back payable on successful launch and no issue found
Click to expand...
Almost every boat out sailing today "needs work". Bit of an extension to say it's not sailable.

Shame it wasn't just a 10% deposit. I mean, most people can afford to lose a 10% deposit on a boat, & then if the seller won't complete the sale or pay it back, there's always the option of using a chainsaw to remove the 10% of the boat that rightfully belongs to you. Remember that case where a builder destroys £475,000 home after 'owner refused to pay £3,500 bill' and the police wouldn't treat it as a criminal matter, but only a civil dispute between the two parties.

Can someone going to just ask WayneP what happened instead of speculating? For some reason, I'm not allowed to private message anyone.

SEI_82209671.jpg
 
The fact, as posted by the OP, that the seller owes the yard four times the 10% witheld by the OP, and the seller has bought a racing boat and hasn't settled his yard bill makes it all very difficult.
How the seller can state that the boat is "free of encumbrances" while the opposite appears to be true, is baffling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

MikeBz
Salty plywood
Replies
7
Views
304
Graham376
Graham376
M
Galeon in the 50ft Class – Hoping to Borrow a Bit of Owner Wisdom
Replies
4
Views
373
Elessar
Elessar
C
Being offered a free Mystere 26
Replies
17
Views
725
Concerto
Concerto
P
Suggest a Yacht please
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
2K
Greenheart
Greenheart

Share this page

Top