Broker's responsibilities

[pessimist]

We are (or were before the little current difficulty) searching for a replacement boat. We found one that seemed suitable but were unable to reach agreement with the vendor on fixing the defects found at survey so we withdrew our offer. The broker was involved in the negotiations and had sight of the relevant parts of the survey. We're still keeping an eye on the market hoping to resume our search when this lot blows over. I notice that the broker has re-advertised the same boat, at the same price with no mention of a previous survey revealing defects. Is this common practice? If it is then presumably one must ask specifically if the boat has previously been rejected after survey before commissioning ones own survey.

 

[bedouin]

The broker mustn't lie but doesn't have to disclose all issues with the boat. From what you say there were no serious issues that made you walk away - just you were unable to reach agreement with the vendor on the rectification.

If any of the defects are serious or render the boat unseaworthy then that might be a different matter.

 

[pessimist]

The broker mustn't lie but doesn't have to disclose all issues with the boat. From what you say there were no serious issues that made you walk away - just you were unable to reach agreement with the vendor on the rectification.

If any of the defects are serious or render the boat unseaworthy then that might be a different matter

Difficult. Serious is a matter of perception. My insurance broker needed to get permission from the underwriter to issue insurance on a temporary and conditional basis. Take your general point, though.

 

[jwilson]

If we ( Yachts for sale at Yachtsnet - UK sailing yacht brokerage and boat sales ) know of anything wrong with a boat we are selling we will tell potential buyers. It's quite pointless letting someone make an offer and pay for a lift and survey only to find something both we and the owner already knew about. To that end if a GRP boat we are selling is ashore it will already have had a moisture meter on the hull, and we can say either that we expect a survey will find the hull OK for her age, or that moisture levels are a bit high, or even very high with blisters. Quite a few years ago we sold an otherwise very nice yacht with a large hole in the hull: the advert had a photo of the hole. To our surprise it sold quite quickly.

 

[Laysula]

If your upfront and honest about what your selling it gives the prospective purchaser a lot more confidence when it comes to making an offer. If I ever thought that someone wasn't telling me the whole story when I am buying something I would just walk away.

 

[Quandary]

If we ( Yachts for sale at Yachtsnet - UK sailing yacht brokerage and boat sales ) know of anything wrong with a boat we are selling we will tell potential buyers. It's quite pointless letting someone make an offer and pay for a lift and survey only to find something both we and the owner already knew about. To that end if a GRP boat we are selling is ashore it will already have had a moisture meter on the hull, and we can say either that we expect a survey will find the hull OK for her age, or that moisture levels are a bit high, or even very high with blisters. Quite a few years ago we sold an otherwise very nice yacht with a large hole in the hull: the advert had a photo of the hole. To our surprise it sold quite quickly.

I have long been impressed by the effort your brokerage goes to to inform, the archive of marques is a valuable resource.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

When previously I’ve made offers on used boats I have always asked whether there are any known defects that are not declared in the particulars. Been quite interesting and not necessarily in a good way. Survey results and Pre-offer declaration some ways apart. So I think you should expect to find that there are things amiss that are known to vendors but not disclosed to you.

 

[Stemar]

I was in the process of preparing a neglected boat for sale for a friend when CV stopped everything. One of the things that was recommended was to get a survey done ourselves. Unfortunately, that revealed damage due, no doubt to a grounding. We're going to get that done, the engine serviced and a few other things so the boat's ready to go. I'm not sure if that's the way to maximise the net income from the sale, but I'll have a clear conscience and I suspect it will make the sale easier.

 

[Aardee]

We are (or were before the little current difficulty) searching for a replacement boat. We found one that seemed suitable but were unable to reach agreement with the vendor on fixing the defects found at survey so we withdrew our offer. The broker was involved in the negotiations and had sight of the relevant parts of the survey. We're still keeping an eye on the market hoping to resume our search when this lot blows over. I notice that the broker has re-advertised the same boat, at the same price with no mention of a previous survey revealing defects. Is this common practice? If it is then presumably one must ask specifically if the boat has previously been rejected after survey before commissioning ones own survey.

The broker probably just reactivated the original advert as the most convenient way to get it back on the open market. Whether they then tell any prospective purchasers is down to their honesty and conscience. The fact it's not explicitly mentioned in the advert isn't necessarily a sign of them being up to no good.

 

[doug748]

If, say, the engine was seized or the keel structure was damaged then the broker is in a questionable position but as this seems not to be the case then I can't see he has done anything unprofessional.

We know that negative findings are often trivial and that two surveys might suggest a quite different list of defects. It would be difficult and potentially wrong of him to speculate on information from a third person's private survey.

PS

He might be prepared to offer the survey (for a fee) to a future prospective buyer, which would , perhaps, help everyone.

 

[mjcoon]

If, say, the engine was seized or the keel structure was damaged then the broker is in a questionable position but as this seems not to be the case then I can't see he has done anything unprofessional.

We know that negative findings are often trivial and that two surveys might suggest a quite different list of defects. It would be difficult and potentially wrong of him to speculate on information from a third person's private survey.

PS

He might be prepared to offer the survey (for a fee) to a future prospective buyer, which would , perhaps, help everyone.

Surely, if the survey was paid for by the withdrawing potential customer, the broker does not own it and cannot offer it, especially "(for a fee)", to someone else?

Mike.

 

[ashtead]

The broker is the agent of the seller so it really depends on what instructions he was given by his client . We don’t know the defects involved but to some buyers they might be reflective of the age of the vessel or engine for example. A defect might be perfectly capable of being rectified surely at a price ? Let’s say for example a survey reveals that the masthead light isn’t working-it’s a defect but hardly serious but does impact the value if the unit is suffering from water ingress and needs replacing but I doubt the seller would reveal. What’s a defect to one purchaser might be normal wear and tear to another at a lower price?

 

[Refueler]

We are (or were before the little current difficulty) searching for a replacement boat. We found one that seemed suitable but were unable to reach agreement with the vendor on fixing the defects found at survey so we withdrew our offer. The broker was involved in the negotiations and had sight of the relevant parts of the survey. We're still keeping an eye on the market hoping to resume our search when this lot blows over. I notice that the broker has re-advertised the same boat, at the same price with no mention of a previous survey revealing defects. Is this common practice? If it is then presumably one must ask specifically if the boat has previously been rejected after survey before commissioning ones own survey.

Did YOU pay for the Survey ? If so then you are the legal owner and rights to that survey. Technically no other has rights to use that Survey unless you pass it on to them and allow free use of it.

OK ... a Broker should not knowingly aid and abet the seller in sale of a defective boat or item. Trouble is who is going to know about a previous survey unless Broker / Seller owns up to one.
Brokers selling used boats on behalf of owners are in that grey area that skips the Caveat Emptor minefield. Look at the typical Get me Out clauses that are in Bills of sale ...

 

[doug748]

Surely, if the survey was paid for by the withdrawing potential customer, the broker does not own it and cannot offer it, especially "(for a fee)", to someone else?

Mike.

Indeed.
The OP may like to offset his costs by making the survey available but, of course, the broker and the vendor would need to agree. Any payment would go to the OP, who owns the survey, and the findings would not carry and legal weight for the third person. Though no doubt the surveyor could be brought onside for a consideration.
I understand this arrangement is sometimes used and can save some time and money. Never done it myself.

 

[[3889]]

If we ( Yachts for sale at Yachtsnet - UK sailing yacht brokerage and boat sales ) know of anything wrong with a boat we are selling we will tell potential buyers. It's quite pointless letting someone make an offer and pay for a lift and survey only to find something both we and the owner already knew about. To that end if a GRP boat we are selling is ashore it will already have had a moisture meter on the hull, and we can say either that we expect a survey will find the hull OK for her age, or that moisture levels are a bit high, or even very high with blisters. Quite a few years ago we sold an otherwise very nice yacht with a large hole in the hull: the advert had a photo of the hole. To our surprise it sold quite quickly.

Well done you. I've just bought a boat from a broker with much the same attitude and it was a pleasure to do business with them; something I cannot say about my past dealings with several UK brokers (mostly franchises). The thing is, yacht brokers don't need to worry too much about returning customers and I can see the temptation to mislead. No less a personage than Sir Cunliffe was lured across the Atlantic on the bases of false promises only to find a candidate for re-decking awaiting. The broker was quite open once TC arrived and encouraged an offer to reflect the true condition, which was accepted so commission was duly pocketed. It does make you wonder if sales people can always be trusted, though.

 

[[163233]]

It's quite pointless letting someone make an offer and pay for a lift and survey only to find something both we and the owner already knew about.

It's my experience that, that is the case with buying boats. The cost of a survey and lift puts a lot of pressure on the buyer and it's used to do that.
Surveys generally are pretty poor value for money, my last one missed some right clangers.

 

[Koeketiene]

It's my experience that, that is the case with buying boats. The cost of a survey and lift puts a lot of pressure on the buyer and it's used to do that.
Surveys generally are pretty poor value for money, my last one missed some right clangers.

Or they are so vague that they become worthless.
Many years ago, we had put in an offer on a balsa core hulled boat.
She had been treated for osmosis, and it was later made known that this had been a DIY job (at the waterline it was vissible that in places the hull was thinner below the waterline than above).
The survey report read, and I quote: below the waterline the hull probably remains adequately strong.
Which reads to me as: she might float, but don't hold me to it.
We passed on the boat.

 

[francophile51]

We are (or were before the little current difficulty) searching for a replacement boat. We found one that seemed suitable but were unable to reach agreement with the vendor on fixing the defects found at survey so we withdrew our offer. The broker was involved in the negotiations and had sight of the relevant parts of the survey. We're still keeping an eye on the market hoping to resume our search when this lot blows over. I notice that the broker has re-advertised the same boat, at the same price with no mention of a previous survey revealing defects. Is this common practice? If it is then presumably one must ask specifically if the boat has previously been rejected after survey before commissioning ones own survey.

It would be very useful if you could describe the defects. Having gone to the trouble and expense of a survey and, I imagine, a lift out that the faults were more than trivial.

 

[jwilson]

Making a previous survey available to a new purchaser is normally done by the surveyor, who may choose (some won't) to "assign" it to the new buyer for a fee. The COPYRIGHT of the report remains with the surveyor. By assigning it to someone else he takes responsibility for his report, and the new report buyer can sue him if he missed something critical, like a hole in the bottom or keelbolts made of cheese. Surveyors vary in how they do this, some then refund part costs to the original commissioner.

If a seller has a copy of a previous buyers survey technically it should not be shown or given to another buyer, but many do.

 

[Blue Sunray]

If a seller has a copy of a previous buyers survey technically it should not be shown or given to another buyer, but many do.

Where do you get that from? Most will explicitly state for whose benefit they are done and limit their liability to that person, but that is not the same as an NDA which is what you have described.