I dont think that is entirely fair.If there is only one lesson be learned from the last few years' of threads on the topic of buying boats, it is that most of us dont/didnt realise many the POTENTIAL pitfalls. I agree occurrence may be so far and few between that ignorance isnt much of a danger, but I would bet very few boat buyers out there are really aware of the difference between a broker/dealer,exactly the effectiveness of client accounts,can even find a meaningful understanding of VAT risks (or not!), the difference between an agent and a dealer etc etc.
I am still learning details this week and thats having read 1000s of posts on the topic!
Many years ago when the SFA was set up, thr new head said he hoped to avoid sharp operators making fools of the public, but there was little he could do about the public making fools of themselves.
I agree, make some enquiries, but as we have all seen, it can be far from obvious.
Of course there is always something to learn, but there is no shortage of the basic information that the Paul was asking about - all readily available and answering nearly all questions. I say nearly all because the issues that come up here tend not to be fundamental but are at the margins, and often only come up because of misunderstandings.
The vast majority of buyers and sellers never need to know any more than the basics because the laws and processes are so well developed and robust that there are never any problems. However there are always going to be events that stretch the robustness of the law - just like Peters, which was so complex that it had to go to the High Court for a resolution.
When you look back at the high profile cases you find that there is almost always something unforseen about them which raises a point of law. What is important is that action is taken in the light of the case - and you can argue that action has been taken in respect of clarifying the status and means of operation of "client accounts" as a result of Peters.
The argument here from Pete and Paul is that not enough has been done and there needs to be some form of compulsion rather than just recommendation. I would agree with that - but only if there is evidence that they claim happens (or might happen) actually does. So far they have been unable to provide any evidence, so it is difficult to see what compulsion would achieve.
Of course there is always something to learn, but there is no shortage of the basic information that the Paul was asking about - all readily available and answering nearly all questions. I say nearly all because the issues that come up here tend not to be fundamental but are at the margins, and often only come up because of misunderstandings.
The vast majority of buyers and sellers never need to know any more than the basics because the laws and processes are so well developed and robust that there are never any problems. However there are always going to be events that stretch the robustness of the law - just like Peters, which was so complex that it had to go to the High Court for a resolution.
When you look back at the high profile cases you find that there is almost always something unforseen about them which raises a point of law. What is important is that action is taken in the light of the case - and you can argue that action has been taken in respect of clarifying the status and means of operation of "client accounts" as a result of Peters.
The argument here from Pete and Paul is that not enough has been done and there needs to be some form of compulsion rather than just recommendation. I would agree with that - but only if there is evidence that they claim happens (or might happen) actually does. So far they have been unable to provide any evidence, so it is difficult to see what compulsion would achieve.
