Broker problem

[DAKA]

Rubbish. You have no idea what you're on about. For example, how does "fitness for purpose" apply in this case?

You come across as someone who has limited experience in the Brokerage field and your input is very welcome but you are oblivious to English Law.

That is fine as very few cases end in court and most are sorted by idiots that are just as gormless of the law, however you should not be so ready to dismiss others posts unless you are certain of specific case history and even then should qualify your input to make it clear there will have been many similar cases sorted outside of court in a manor somewhat different to the legal expectations.

In answer to your reply, fit for purpose could well play a part here and trading standards could well provide help especially if the boat was owned by the broker, there are a lot of stock boats out there !

The purchaser should have learned more about suitable boats, a twin diesel was never going to be a sensible trailer option.
A far as I am aware the Land Cruiser falls short of a Range Rover especially the older models.

 

[Observer]

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002). all refer to fitness for purpose.

They do. And how does SoGA apply to a sale between two private individuals selling and buying otherwise than in the course of a business (albeit one is represented by an agent or broker)?

The short answer is, it doesn't. You're the one whose wafflling. I said you were talking rubbish and you have no idea what you're on about. You are and you don't.

 

[Observer]

You come across as someone who has limited experience in the Brokerage field and your input is very welcome but you are oblivious to English Law.

That is fine as very few cases end in court and most are sorted by idiots that are just as gormless of the law, however you should not be so ready to dismiss others posts unless you are certain of specific case history and even then should qualify your input to make it clear there will have been many similar cases sorted outside of court in a manor somewhat different to the legal expectations.

In answer to your reply, fit for purpose could well play a part here and trading standards could well provide help especially if the boat was owned by the broker, there are a lot of stock boats out there !

The purchaser should have learned more about suitable boats, a twin diesel was never going to be a sensible trailer option.
A far as I am aware the Land Cruiser falls short of a Range Rover especially the older models.

Oh god. Not another clueless barrack room lawyer.

If the boat was owned by the broker (not impossible but highly unlikely) he would not be acting as a broker so the reference to "broker" would be irrelevant (and misleading).

Explain please, exactly, how and to what contract the implied condition of "fitness for purpose" is likely to apply to this case on the basis of the facts as stated by the OP?

 

[DAKA]

You might have a valued input but is there any chance you can put it across without the adjectives please, if you have a spare minute or two you may find it therapeutic to read some of the 80llox you have written

Irritating moron
Clueless dummy
waffling clown
irrelevant fool
backroom lawyer

I apologise if there are any missquotes that crept in there that were perhaps some of my own phrases I chose not to use when replying to you .
Cant fine the smiley but hope you get the message and the humour.

 

[Observer]

You might have a valued input but is there any chance you can put it across without the adjectives please, if you have a spare minute or two you may find it therapeutic to read some of the 80llox you have written

Irritating moron
Clueless dummy
waffling clown
irrelevant fool
backroom lawyer

I apologise if there are any missquotes that crept in there that were perhaps some of my own phrases I chose not to use when replying to you .
Cant fine the smiley but hope you get the message and the humour.

Ah - it's DAKA isn't it. I didn't recognise your new alias.

Do you have an answer to "how and to what contract the implied condition of "fitness for purpose" is likely to apply to this case on the basis of the facts as stated by the OP?"

If not, who's been "waffling" or "talking bollox"? Who is an "irrelevant fool" or a "clueless dummy"?

I don't lighly use the descriptions you quoted (and I don't think I have used them all). If I have used any of them, it is in circumstances where it is justified. If I venture a statement on a legal point, it will be substantially correct. If I'm not sure of what I'm saying/writing, I'll keep quiet or say "it's possible that" (or similar). It would be better if other people would do the same. That way we don't have to read rubbish such as

If a known purchasing criterion was "towability", then it's not fit for purpose. End of story; money back.

You're welcome to search for an example to disprove me (but you won't).

 

[Wiggo]

Can I have a fiver on Observer?

 

[DAKA]

Reply to Obsever

Well its a step in the right direction, well done sir !

The point of a forum is to get a wide selection of view points.

I read sarabande's interpretation and then I read yours.

Because sarabande posted a polite response then most readers will put more weight behind his argument as I have done.

Your input may or may not be right but the way you chose to put it across just destroys any credibility add that to other recent posts of yours which have been completely wrong and I assume you are wrong again this time.

Right or wrong thats just human nature.

Yes it is DAKA, not meaning to hide, just the new layout.
Kind regards
Pete

 

[DAKA]

It looks like I am wrong about posting styles, clearly you have a following who enjoy your stlye.
I will back off, please continue as normal.

I will just pop you on ignore and we are all happy.

 

[David of Essex]

Time for some light humour

The only way to pull off a Sunday afternoon 'quickie' with their 8-year old son in the apartment was to send him out on the balcony with a Popsicle and tell him to report on all the neighborhood activities.

He began his commentary as his parents put their plan into operation:

- 'There's a car being towed from the parking lot,' he shouted.

- 'An ambulance just drove by!'

- 'Looks like the Anderson's have company,' he called out.

- 'Matt's riding a new bike!'

- 'Looks like the Sanders are moving!'

- 'Jason is on his skate board!'

After a few moments he announced, 'The Coopers are having sex!!'

Startled, his mother and dad shot up in bed!

Dad cautiously called out, 'How do you know they are having sex?'

'Jimmy Cooper is standing on his balcony with a Popsicle too!

David

 

[Observer]

Your input may or may not be right but the way you chose to put it across just destroys any credibility add that to other recent posts of yours which have been completely wrong and I assume you are wrong again this time.

Such as?

(You won't answer this one either, will you?)

 

[oGaryo]

Time for some light humour

The only way to pull off a Sunday afternoon 'quickie' with their 8-year old son in the apartment was to send him out on the balcony with a Popsicle and tell him to report on all the neighborhood activities.

He began his commentary as his parents put their plan into operation:

- 'There's a car being towed from the parking lot,' he shouted.

- 'An ambulance just drove by!'

- 'Looks like the Anderson's have company,' he called out.

- 'Matt's riding a new bike!'

- 'Looks like the Sanders are moving!'

- 'Jason is on his skate board!'

After a few moments he announced, 'The Coopers are having sex!!'

Startled, his mother and dad shot up in bed!

Dad cautiously called out, 'How do you know they are having sex?'

'Jimmy Cooper is standing on his balcony with a Popsicle too!

David

nice one the best post so far in this thread ;-) closely follwed by Wiggo's ;-)

 

[jfm]

Not replying to anyone in particular (indeed, do you actually reply to a particular post in this new forum? I can't see who's replying to what anymore) but I'll also put money on Observer's position. So far as one can tell from the OP (which lacked detial) the Sale of Goods Act mentioned by Sarabade has zero application. Fitness for purpose is irrelevant, as Observer said. The only utterance the broker made about weight was (accroding to OP) a 2700kg figure quoted in the ad, and there will surely be disclaimers with respect to that. So no-one has even made a misrepresentation as far as I can see, and the buyer has no comeback at all, and shouldn't have.

Furthermore, and Observer also mentioned this, even if there had been a misrepresentation (which I don't think there has) buyer's only recourse in this type of case is for recovery of his losses, but he has suffered none, so he has no claim

The broker is quite right to tell buyer to get lost (based on the info as much as i can glean it from OP). Folks have a respinsibility to look after themselves and apply common sense, not go crying to someone (the broker in this case, or Trading Standards) when they make a mistake. Especially a stupid mistake. The boat seller sold his boat in good faith and it is perfectly right that the law gives him finality on the transaction, and gives no comeback to the buyer, in a case like this. People need to grow up and acknowledge caveat emptor in cases like this. If I were the broker I'd put the buyer "on ignore" so far as refunding the boat purchase is concerned

 

[BOATKID]

fit for purpose - surely the purpose of a boat is to float on water - tee hee!!!

 

[strakeryrius]

Not replying to anyone in particular (indeed, do you actually reply to a particular post in this new forum?

You click the Quote button in the post that you want to reply to - which is actually a reply with quote box. Your post will then show who you are replying to as well as the post number that you are replying to.

You can delete out any irrelevant text in the quote so that posts don't become massively unwieldy.

 

[jfm]

Your post will then show who you are replying to as well as the post number that you are replying to.

Thanks. Bit of a nuisance to have to delete the text if you don't actually want to quote anything. Also, I can see that it shows the person you're replying to, but not the post number. Mind you, neither did the previous forum

 

[AndieMac]

If the combined weight of the boat and trailer does eventually (after accurate assessment- ie. weigh-bridge) exceed the legal towing limits, and the operator does not wish to 'risk it', there are other options available.

Leave the boat/trailer in yard storage with adjacent slipway and launch with Landcruiser.

Have the unit towed to a destination (similar yard storage), with a small truck (rented or towage company) and 'as above'.

Trade the Landcruiser on a small truck if you intend to do lots towing to various destinations with no facilities. If the Cruiser is the principle means of transport, separate purchase of a small car will have to be factored in.

 

[gjgm]

Its not just the vehicle.. it depends on what driving licence you have too, surely?

 

[fireball]

Reply to JFM:

Folks have a respinsibility to look after themselves and apply common sense, not go crying to someone (the broker in this case, or Trading Standards) when they make a mistake.

Whislt I completely agree with your conclusion that the buyer has no comeback, the general situation leaves the broker free to abuse the position. Whislt the broker is employed by the seller they are usually seen by buyers as professionals - and therefore "responsible*" in their field.
Many ppl use brokers for advice because of their wide ranging knowledge of boats, and if I'd specifically requested a boat to be traillerable and they sold me one that wasn't (which could have been reasonably determined before the transaction) then I'd be pissed off too - both with myself and with the broker for effectively lieing to me.

I believe the broker should, if the traillerable situation cannot be resolved, offer to resell the boat for 0% commission.

* I use responsible as meaning acting in an honest way rather than any legal responsibility.

 

[Tidnock]

Not read all of the above, so excuse me if I have missed some of the issues, but if the boat is on a trailer, to a degree, it is what you turn up to pull it with that somewhat defines whether it is legal or not.

Scania 620hp 6x4 tractor unit, JCB Fastrac, Range Rover, Reliant Robin. The JCB fastrac and other similar agricultural vehicles have very relaxed regulations.

So when buying something on a trailer, should you not ascertain the gross weight of the boat and trailer, work out if your vehicle can pull it legally with or without a braked trailer and then buy it if it will. its not "let the buyer beware" it is more like "let the buyer educate himself"

 

[gjgm]

but the query here is that the buyer believed the boat was 2700kg, and the broker offered to find a trailer.IE the buyer anticipated being able to drive it legally with some sort of road car (my assumptions, and I would imagine , the buyer's too)
So, who is at fault, and who might be liable, for the 2700kg assumption being incorrect?

Not read all of the above, so excuse me if I have missed some of the issues, but if the boat is on a trailer, to a degree, it is what you turn up to pull it with that somewhat defines whether it is legal or not.

Scania 620hp 6x4 tractor unit, JCB Fastrac, Range Rover, Reliant Robin. The JCB fastrac and other similar agricultural vehicles have very relaxed regulations.

So when buying something on a trailer, should you not ascertain the gross weight of the boat and trailer, work out if your vehicle can pull it legally with or without a braked trailer and then buy it if it will. its not "let the buyer beware" it is more like "let the buyer educate himself"