Broker problem

I'm astonished Daka. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but do you really want all that regulation? Have you considered fairness to the broker - he quoted a weight figure in an ad in good faith and made a disclaimer (I presume) in his ad which fairly passed the burden of due diligence onto the buyer (which is where it belongs). And have you considered the fairness on the seller? - he should get finality to his sale once he has the contract/money, barring exceptional circumstances.

Folk need to taske respnsibility for their own acctions and look before they leap. all success in our economy flows from that attitude, not an attitude where risk is (cack handedly) managed/allocated by the state.

Do you really want the state to wipe your bottom for you?
 
jfm said:
do you really want all that regulation?
Click to expand...

Yes, (I am not on a wind up, although admit to taking exception to one posters stlye and then playing a little ) I can understand some not being in full agreement with me however I am mystified by the apparent lack of understanding to the benefits as I see them.

I am happy to agree to disagree and I dont intend to force the issue.
 
For Daka - (can't be bothered to pick out a quote)

What an amazing tirade built on so little fact. You do not know that the buyer required a towable boat - he only seems to have wanted to transport it by road.

I am also amazed at your lack of understanding of the difference between consumer law and the general law of contract and agency. Trading Standards is there to protect consumers from traders and neither a broker nor a private seller is a trader in this context. In a private transaction it is up to both the buyer and seller to make their own decision whether they are happy with the transaction from their own point of view.

You grossly overexxagerate the supposed negative behaviour of brokers. There is absolutely no evidence that they regularly dip into clients' funds (which does not mean there have not been cases). The system is well tried and works. The law of contract and agency is perfectly adequate for dealing with disputes. Why do you need to bring in yet more regulation when there is no need?
 
Trading Standards is there to protect consumers from traders and neither a broker nor a private seller is a trader in this context. In a private transaction it is up to both the buyer and seller to make their own decision whether they are happy with the transaction from their own point of view.
Click to expand...
I can quite understand a private seller not being subject to trading standards, generally they are not making a business out of it, however, Brokers ARE making a living out of selling (other peoples) boats. So there is nothing to stop them from lieing other than their own sense of honesty..

I hate to see legislation to save ppl from their own stupidity, but if brokers consistently decieve buyers then they need to be brought to account.
 
I was attempting to keep my views to myself and not to continue with the arguments but feel awkward in not responding to you as you have directed the post to me.

I had a poor experience with a Broker.
Hence I have a tainted view of them and regulation would at least weed out the worst ones.

In brief here goes

Broker advertises a boat £15000 (worth £20000)

I look at it , I know nothing about boats but my mum used to watch howards way.

Broker tells me how good it is.

Ask about to find Bayliners have osmosis problems.

Ask the broker if this has osmosis

No, no this is nearly new and is still under warranty anyway.

I ask if i should get a survey

he says no dont bother with that, you are paying cash (cheque not a suitcase), there is no need.

I buy the boat.


Previous owner returns my call 3 days late as he had been on holiday, the boat has osmosis and the broker bought the boat from him after deducting £3000 for a treatment.


Get barrister involved and get £3000 off broker as he lied to me.

took loads of grief to do it, had to gamble my costs but I was determined that he wouldnt get away with it.
Pyrrhic victory really.

It would appear that other forum readers think I was wrong to demand compensation and I should have learned more about boats before I bought one, I didnt know that much about houses before I bought one either !

The broker pretended to be my friend and gave what appeared to be helpful advice.

I was young, I have learned since.

The last two boats I have bought have been taken out of brokers hand before I would complete direct with the owner, having someone with a licence to lie in the middle makes no sense to me at all.





Does anyone know what happened to Dave Deritte and Bob Hardiman T/A DH Marine T/A severn yacht brokers, kempsey ?
 
Last edited:
So there is nothing to stop them from lieing other than their own sense of honesty..
****
Is that actually true? If they deliberately mislead and lie to you, you have no recourse at all?
That seems odd. Maybe not through TS, but you are saying there is no legal recourse through any means?
 
Err....

dacarak said:
In brief here goes

Broker advertises a boat £15000 (worth £20000)

I look at it , I know nothing about boats but my mum used to watch howards way.

Broker tells me how good it is.

Ask about to find Bayliners have osmosis problems.

Ask the broker if this has osmosis

No, no this is nearly new and is still under warranty anyway.

I ask if i should get a survey

he says no dont bother with that, you are paying cash (cheque not a suitcase), there is no need.

I buy the boat.

Previous owner returns my call 3 days late as he had been on holiday, the boat has osmosis and the broker bought the boat from him after deducting £3000 for a treatment.
Click to expand...

Different scenario?
 
It's very hard to keep up with your mixed up logic Daka. I'll have a go, but am losing the will :-). You bought that boat from a trader. You were fully protected by SOGA1979 etc, of which one of the conditions (in addition to the oft-quoted "fit for purpose") is "corresponds to the description given". It was described as an oz-free boat, and it turned out it wasn't. You were entitled under SOGA to refund, exchange, damages, your choice. It seems your lawyer/you chose the damages route and you won, and I assume got your legal costs refunded. I don't see the pyrrhic-ness of that victory.

Your position was quite different from OP's, who bought from a private seller

There's no more that any law could do for you. You were as fully protected as the law can sensibly achieve. Licensing brokers and having rules like "don't tell lies" wouldn't stop the very few unscrupulous ones, any more than the Theft Act 1968 stops all burglaries. (Incidentally, the broker in OP's case probably didn't tell lies - he quoted a weight in an ad and will (I guess) have issued a standard disclaimer, as he is fully entitled to do)

Laws/regulation should be in place where sensible and practical. But as I say there comes a point where you gotta stop being a wimp, wipe your own bottom and not expect the state (or, more to the point, other bigger taxpayers than you) to do it for you.
 
Sorry, Daka, but all your tale does is demonstrate your ignorance of the law!

If I follow you correctly the "broker" was not a "broker" but a TRADER because he owned the boat. You have/had every right to take him to the cleaners for mis representing the boat and you could call in Trading Standards to help you. This is just the same as buying a second hand car from a dealer and the transaction is covered by consumer law.

On the other hand if the person is acting as agent for the vendor which is what most brokers do, your contract is direct with the seller and is a specific contract and is not covered by consumer law. This is why the purchaser has to make his own checks, for example by having a survey to ensure as far as possible the boat is as the vendor described. The broker's responsibility is to the vendor as that is who pays him. Most brokers will always try to ensure that they are honest with the potential purchaser because it is in their interest to have a trouble free transaction.

So, before you launch more tirades, suggest you read up on the basics on buying and selling boats. When you understand the process you will then understand why there is no pressing need for the legislation you propose - it is already there where it is needed as in your case.
 
dacarak said:
[stuff about a dodgy broker]
Click to expand...

So you were misled (possibly fraudulently) by a broker and you obtained compensation (may not have been adequate, but compensation) through legal due process. In what way would a regulated environment be guaranteed to prevent that transaction from happening or improve the outcome you actually obtained?

No amount of regulation will totally eliminate dishonest trading by unscrupulous businesses/individuals? Did regulation by the BoE, FSA and the Treasury prevent the financial crisis?

You also really need to read up on some basic principles of law - when contract law applies and when equity takes over; torts; law of agency and so on.

I missed the contradiction in broker/dealer status as mentioned by jfm and tranona and not sure which actually applied. Whatever the facts are/were, you did obtain compensation by the laws applicable to the transaction you made.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.

jfm said:
It's very hard to keep up with your mixed up logic Daka. I'll have a go, but am losing the will :-). You bought that boat from a trader. You were fully protected by SOGA1979 etc, of which one of the conditions (in addition to the oft-quoted "fit for purpose") is "corresponds to the description given". It was described as an oz-free boat, and it turned out it wasn't. You were entitled under SOGA to refund, exchange, damages, your choice. It seems your lawyer/you chose the damages route and you won, and I assume got your legal costs refunded. I don't see the pyrrhic-ness of that victory.

Your position was quite different from OP's, who bought from a private seller

There's no more that any law could do for you. You were as fully protected as the law can sensibly achieve. Licensing brokers and having rules like "don't tell lies" wouldn't stop the very few unscrupulous ones, any more than the Theft Act 1968 stops all burglaries. (Incidentally, the broker in OP's case probably didn't tell lies - he quoted a weight in an ad and will (I guess) have issued a standard disclaimer, as he is fully entitled to do)

Laws/regulation should be in place where sensible and practical. But as I say there comes a point where you gotta stop being a wimp, wipe your own bottom and not expect the state (or, more to the point, other bigger taxpayers than you) to do it for you.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

OP failed in his own due diligence.

Daka example was misrepresentation.
 
Licensing brokers and having rules like "don't tell lies" wouldn't stop the very few unscrupulous ones, any more than the Theft Act 1968 stops all burglaries.
Click to expand...
No - of course it won't ... but it would give the buyer some confidence that the "advice" they are receiving from a broker isn't just the broker selling the boat they've got ...

I know Daka was buying from a Trader rather than through a broker, but the steps a buyer takes is identical.

Is there a Guild of Brokers? Or a Trade Assoc they can belong to?
 
re broker who selled me a pup

Sorry lost the thread here as many others have, this new forum is misleading.
Re my Bayliner post.
I was not offering an argument in any shape or form in relation to the op situation.

I agree with jfm, and tronana (not sure about observer, not too keen to read that one , dare I take him off ignore to look ?.) regarding my situation.

I posted simply to explain

a) my mistrust of brokers

b) my preference to see a regulated industry by giving a real life example of how a regulated industry would help prevent re occurrences.

I have not claimed to be a legal expert.
I am happy to accept jfm has a firm grasp of English law and has posted an honest representation.
All I have done is expressed my thoughts on the subject, right or wrong they are my thoughts , I do not wish to argue, although I will continue to read the thread I have so far not read anything to change my mind on any of my thoughts I have shared with the forum.

Brokers should be regulated and dishonest ones sent packing.
 
fireball said:
No - of course it won't ... but it would give the buyer some confidence that the "advice" they are receiving from a broker isn't just the broker selling the boat they've got ...



Is there a Guild of Brokers? Or a Trade Assoc they can belong to?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is as has been already referenced.

Howeverr, the important thing to remember is that a broker has no legal responsibility to the buyer, unless the buyer engages him as an agent to advise him on purchase of a boat.

The broker is an agent of the vendor.

These relationships have been established in law for well over 100 years and work well where the transaction is between two private individuals - the broker acts to safeguard the vendor's interest and the buyer safeguards his own or more usually employs a surveyor to advise whether the boat is as described in the contract. All these processes are well established with model contracts and covered by codes of conduct. However as others have pointed out you can never eliminate crooked or fraudulent activity - but both are rare in the boating business.

Once the broker ceases to be an agent by buying and selling on his own account then consumer law comes in. However it is still normal for a significant purchase to use a surveyor as part of the process, although the purchaser still has potential redress against the trader even if his surveyor misses something. This is not the case with a private purchase where the potential redress is from the surveyor.

Hope this clarifies a bit.
 
fireball said:
but it would give the buyer some confidence that the "advice" they are receiving from a broker isn't just the broker selling the boat they've got
Click to expand...

Hmmm, but is what we are trying to achieve with any new law mere "confidence" in the mind of the buyer? Touchy feely stuff? I suggest the objective of any legal framework should be (a) to create incentives -both carrot and stick- for folks to behave well/honestly and (b) to give injured people good redress if they are duped. I dont think it is the job of the state, in matters such as this, to interfere with business with the objective merely of giving boat buyers confidence. We already have enough laws in this area. Boat buyers are generally the smarter end of society. They really ought, of all social groups, to be wiping their own bums.
 
Last edited:
Tranona said:
a broker has no legal responsibility to the buyer...
Click to expand...

That isn't really right Tranona, unless you take a very narrow meaning of "legal responsibility". The broker has responsibilities/potential liabilities to the buyer in tort, if not in contract. And more importnatly, if the broker is vendor's agent*, which as you rightly say he generally is, then what he says/does/represents generally binds the vendor (in contract as well as tort)

* and remeberr here the law is substnatially tilted in buyer's favour: buyer is entitled to assume the broker has certain agency powers and the vendor will be bound on the basis of those assumed powers. A vendor can't escape liability for the actions of his agent merely becuase the agency contract is unusually restricted in its terms as to the agent's powers, unless those restrictions have been communicated to buyer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top