Buying from a broker, what's at risk ?

[ari]

The contract is not between equals. Far from it. The seller may not disclose defects and the broker acts purely on behalf of the seller - caveat emptor. So the purchaser has to incur costs - lift out and survey (let's face it, most people would not buy a boat over, say, £10K without a survey). It is only at this point that the buyer really knows the boat's worth to him. There is nothing equal about that.

Which is precisely why the offer is made subject to survey and sea trial. SO that if the survey shows up something that affects what the boat is worth then it is possible to re negotiate.

Let's put this on the other foot. You have it your way, don't put down a deposit. Pay for a lift out, have a survey, and the broker says to you "oh, sorry, just taken a deposit from another buyer, boat is now off the market".

And/or you travel down, stay in a hotel perhaps, have your trial and like it and the next day same thing happens, broker tells you boat now under offer elsewhere.

And why shouldn't he? He has absolutely zero commitment from you.

That will be ok will it?

Or are you going to say that's unfair too, you shouldn't have to make a commitment (deposit) but the broker should commit to selling you the boat.

You seem to want an awful lot of things your way.

As has been said, the current system works perfectly. You agree to buy assuming all is well. You place a deposit on that basis and that holds the boat for you whilst your survey and trial are arranged and completed. Then, if there is material reason or if you really don't like the boat on trial, you re-negotiate or you pull out. If all well (or re-negotiation successful) you complete.

What could be simpler?

 

[ari]

Really? I'm on my seventh house and not once have I ever been asked for a 10% (or any) deposit, even when I was in a position to do so.

And have you ever been gazumped..?

If you had, you might have wished there was a system in place whereby you could make some commitment to hold the purchase whilst the buying process was carried out.

Perhaps some sort of deposit..?

 

[ari]

I would expect a broker to contact me to get permission for/request a sea trial. Each request dealt with on merit. I would also expect the broker to have done some homework before contacting me regarding how serious and genuine it is thought the buyer really is. Maybe this is where a broker's 'expertise' could be worth something.

How do you expect the broker to gauge how serious and genuine a buyer is?

Some sort of financial commitment perhaps?

All roads lead to the same ending, the current system is so widely used because it works well, and it works for both parties.

Put it this way, there's a million brokers out there. And every single one gets paid ONLY on completion of a successful sale. The more they sell, the more they earn.

Surely if the practice of offering free rides to all and sundry was going to sell more boats, somebody would be doing it?

In fact, wouldn't they all..?

 

[Tranona]

The fact is, some people aren't too happy with the current process. You can either bury your head in the sand/grind your axe or accept that there must be a better way to draw buyers in and make the whole buying process as straightforward and risk-free as it can be.

Apart from nothing, what are your suggestions?

As others have already responded, there is little that is wrong with the current process. problems occur (if they do) because of the actions of the people involved, not because of flaws in the system. Your removal of any tests of commitment by a potential buyer would be unacceptable to the majority of sellers. As I have said several times, most transactions are between strangers and there is a lot at stake for both parties. The law that governs such transactions is quite clear and the current contract method puts in place the legal framework to govern the transaction. In your "method" there is no commitment on behalf of the buyer, and the buyer runs the risk of the boat being sold to somebody else. I cannot see any way this makes the process "easier" - all it does is allows the buyer to mess about at the expense of the seller.

Of course there are some people who are "not happy" - thats just how life is. Of course some deals are frustrating as they don't all go according to plan - thats how life is. Of course there are some people who feel uncomfortable with this procees - most do it only a few times in their lives and each one is a big adventure.

As for defending Brokers, what I find interesting in all these interminable threads, is that the negative feedbacck (such as it is) almost always comes from buyers (or potential buyers) rarely from sellers. I wonder why? - after all if brokers P****d off buyers all the time they would never do any business - and they do. And don't try to tell me that is because sellers are paying them - a broker spends more of his time and effort on buyers rather than sellers.

All along these discussions, buyers sem to think they are somehow special and sellers should do everything the buyer asks. Remember for (almost) every time you are a buyer you are also a seller. Do you think potential buyers of your boat should be free to string you along without making any commitment? These transactions involve two private people and should take place in a way that allows each party to protect their own interests - and this is exactly what the current system does.

 

[gjgm]

As others have already responded, there is little that is wrong with the current process. problems occur (if they do) because of the actions of the people involved, not because of flaws in the system.

Yep, such as some people have not read and/or understood the agreement they signed : both buyer and seller need to agree on the way forward. The process is well established and accepted because it is seen as fair to both parties.
CFusion- of course anyone is entitled to come along and say I dont want to proceed under those terms because I want it more one sided.
What has been said so many times here is that there is nothing to stop a seller doing anything he wishes if he feels that might bring him a sale, BUT that is outside and beyond the agreement, and the buyer must understand that there is no obligation or common practice for him to do anything more at all.

 

[Renegade_Master]

Coldfusion quote : Viewing and sea trial without the need to sign a contract committing to purchase. (I think this frightens some prospective boat buyers away).


CF why dont you read my earlier post based on experience, you have simply ignored the points I made.

 

[PaulGooch]

<snip>

So please keep a sense of proportion. The vast majority of transactions go smoothly, but if you took the lead from some of the posts here you would think that every one is a disaster about to happen. That is just not the case.

It doesn't matter what the exact debate concerns, sea trials, deposits, client accounts, finance etc etc, your stance is always absolutely the same "most work ok, so everything is fine".

 

[ari]

It doesn't matter what the exact debate concerns, sea trials, deposits, client accounts, finance etc etc, your stance is always absolutely the same "most work ok, so everything is fine".

And that's life. We live in an imperfect world full of imperfect people.

For sure, improvement should always be sought. But if your aim is a system in which every single person is happy with then very best of luck, frankly.

 

[Tranona]

It doesn't matter what the exact debate concerns, sea trials, deposits, client accounts, finance etc etc, your stance is always absolutely the same "most work ok, so everything is fine".

You clearly only read what you want to read. I have listened to all the so called "arguments" for change and are just not convinced, firstly that the so called "problems" are systemic, nor that any of the so-called "improvements" will change anything.

This is mainly because the system works and nobody can state really what the "problem" is - only that some people don't like it. If there is failure you need to clearly identify what it is, and show how your proposed changes will be an improvement.

And yes you have to say in this case there appears to be little wrong because thousands of boats change hands every year without any problems. This is because there is a well established legal framework to govern the transactions that clearly states each party's rights and obligations and respects their interests.

I know that failures happen as they are impossible to eliminate when human beings are involved - but don't blame them on the system. This current thread focusses on sea trials because some potential purchasers think they should have the right to try somebody else's private property without any commitment to buy it. That is an unreasonable expectation, and if it means the potential buyer won't proceed without it then tough. You can't force the seller to do anything until a contract exists. On the other hand if a seller wishes to offer a trial he is perfectly at liberty to do so. How can you be fairer than that?

The argument (if it really is an argument) is that allowing trials without any commitment to buy will help the seller just does not stand up to scrutiny. What crystalises a sale is the contract, which can include a sea trial as a condition - and the purpose of the sea trial specified. That is very different from "give me a trial then I will think about making an offer". A potential buyer cannot be considered serious until he makes an offer and signs a contract.

So, work on the Human" bit because it is that which brings about successful transactions - and don't blame failure on a perfectly adequate system.

 

[ColdFusion]

OK, no takers then Let's slightly amend the process in my earlier post to see if we can reach agreement:

1) Viewing
2) Offer made, negotiated and accepted.
3) Nominal (minimum of say, £200) non-refundable deposit paid to cover expenses/logistics of sea trial.
4a) After sea trial, contract is signed, subject to survey, etc.
4b) Broker supplies buyer with Client Account details including letter from bank confirming account is protected from normal business use by broker. Client account backed by insurance indemnity by broker's professional body.
4c) 5% deposit paid (less amount paid at point 3). Boat now has 'sale pending' status. Buyer and seller legally committed via contract.
5) Survey, mechanical checks and re-negotiation if necessary.
6) Seller passes all paperwork to broker relating to ownership, registration, receipts, manuals, etc.
7) Balance of purchase price paid into broker's Client Account and ownership of boat immediately transfers to buyer, along with bill of sale, transfer of registration and all paperwork, manuals, etc.
8) Handover keys.

Comments, objections, suggestions?

Just trying to improve what I perceive to be a situation that puts some people off, especially prospective first-time boat owners.

 

[Resolution]

CFusion
Trouble I think with your scenario is one of the law. Until a legally binding contact is struck, all "agreements" are just puff and quite unenforcible if one party changes his/her mind.

 

[Tranona]

OK, no takers then Let's slightly amend the process in my earlier post to see if we can reach agreement:

1) Viewing
2) Offer made, negotiated and accepted.
3) Nominal (minimum of say, £200) non-refundable deposit paid to cover expenses/logistics of sea trial.
4a) After sea trial, contract is signed, subject to survey, etc.
4b) Broker supplies buyer with Client Account details including letter from bank confirming account is protected from normal business use by broker. Client account backed by insurance indemnity by broker's professional body.
4c) 5% deposit paid (less amount paid at point 3). Boat now has 'sale pending' status. Buyer and seller legally committed via contract.
5) Survey, mechanical checks and re-negotiation if necessary.
6) Seller passes all paperwork to broker relating to ownership, registration, receipts, manuals, etc.
7) Balance of purchase price paid into broker's Client Account and ownership of boat immediately transfers to buyer, along with bill of sale, transfer of registration and all paperwork, manuals, etc.
8) Handover keys.

Comments, objections, suggestions?

Just trying to improve what I perceive to be a situation that puts some people off, especially prospective first-time boat owners.

Apart from the fact that you have no hard "evidence" that people are "put off" - only your opinion, it seems your objection is to the buyer making any commitment until they have tried the boat. I would hazard a guess that the majority of boats change hands when they are laid up ashore. So your trial before any commitment is made will slow things down - not speed them up.

I fail to understand why a serious potential purchaser would be unwilling to enter into a contract and make a financial commitment on the basis that if the boat is as described he will buy it at the price agreed. After all, the seller has something the buyer wants, so it is not unreasonable that he gains some commitment, otherwise he is being strung along. If the buyer is unable to decide whether he likes the boat or not, perhaps he should not be trying to buy it.

It is completely irrelevant whether the buyer is a first time buyer or a seasoned old salt. The principle is exactly the same. The seller is selling what he has - it is not up to him whether the buyer likes it or not. If the buyer is not sure, he should not be wasting time, but should find out what he wants before starting the purchase process.

As I said it is people that make deals - not the process.

 

[PaulGooch]

Apart from the fact that you have no hard "evidence" that people are "put off" - only your opinion,

There is more than one person in this thread that would be put off.

When i bought my current boat, i walked away from a dealer that refused a sea trial without an offer, deposit, contract etc. The boat in question was still for sale 18 months later, at a lower price and the seller would have had to pay more in mooring fees.

Would 18 months of mooring fees really be less money that the fuel for a 15 minute sea trial on a boat that burns 25 litres an hour ? I think not. Had i have had a trial on the boat and liked the Volvo engine more than the Nanni engine i had already tried, i would have, without any doubt whatsoever bought the boat. The sale would have been completed within one week.

No way would i pay a 10% deposit on a boat, before taking a sea trial, that was on-refundable if i didn't like the boat for any reason. If i didn't like the noise levels/ride/handling etc i would want my money back.

I would be happy to pay any costs for the sea trial in the event i didn't buy the boat and wouldn't expect the boat to be taken off the market. I turn up, by arrangement, pay a small amount that would cover the costs of the trial, take the trial and if i don't like the boat, i walk, leaving the deposit with the seller. If i like it, i pay the rest of the 10%.

 

[PaulGooch]

The seller is selling what he has - it is not up to him whether the buyer likes it or not. If the buyer is not sure, he should not be wasting time, but should find out what he wants before starting the purchase process.

How does the buyer know for sure it's what he wants if he's never been on one ?

How many posts do we read where people have bought boats and don't like things about it, that would have been apparent on a sea trial. For instance, how many times do people enquire about fitting trim tabs, because they don't like the bow u attitude of their new boat ?

I had actually decided on a MF 805, i liked everything about the boat that i could see. I had narrowed my choices down to two particular boats. One had a Nanni engine, the other a Volvo.

How would i know which engine i like without two trials ?

Seriously ?

I was a 100% genuine buyer and i made the situation perfectly clear to both sellers (both brokerage). The owner was already present when we viewed the boat with the Nanni engine (he had to come with a battery and jump leads), he was more than happy to take us for a trial, in fact it was he who suggested it. The broker for the second boat couldn't even be bothered to get her lazy arse out of the warm office to accompany us to the boat and was adamant their would be no trial without the deposit etc.

It cost the owner a possible sale and the first owner had his money within a week. It cost him nothing, as the fuel was already in the boat.

 

[gjgm]

How does the buyer know for sure it's what he wants if he's never been on one ?

Well the discussion is now just going in circles.
Tranona put it very clearly above that the process should be supported by the legal framework, and as it is a private sale, both parties should be equal in the transaction. After decades of thousands of boats being sold, the current set up is used as it supports this process.
The reason that the framework is NOT that a prospective buyer can have a sea trial without any commitment is because it lies outside any contract. There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone doing that if they so wish, but clearly private sellers are not interested in doing so. Why? Because they are selling a boat and the buyer is making no commitment to buy it.
So, to meet your wishes, either the sea trial must lie outside a contract, or the sea trial lies within a non binding contract- which isnt much of a contract for either party.
Anyone can sell their boat under those terms if they wish; you might ask yourself why people do not.

 

[Renegade_Master]

coldfusion's suggestion is a compromise which may suit certain persons like the poster above who wished to check two of the same type of boat but with different engines.

CF suggestion is a non-refundable "agreed sum" paid to the seller to cover the sea trial (boat stays on market at this point) I'm sure someone would wait to look at a boat if its out for an hour on trial

The gentleman who was refused a trial of the volvo engined boat may well then have bought it especially as the sum for the sea trial would have been deducted from any subsequent deposit and agreement.

At least the prospect of a "paid for" sea trial should put off "joy riders" and recompense the sellers costs if a "serious" buyer did not buy it post trial.

It would then be interesting to see how many folks would be prepared to pay for a sea trial in advance I suspect not many.

 

[ari]

Two hundred quid for an hour or two's (maybe a morning if you pick your victim carefully, one upstream with a long river to come down, Swanwick for example) exclusive ride out on a big Sunseeker or Fairline?

Sounds good to me, I'll have a few of those.

Much cheaper than buying a boat.

 

[ari]

OK, no takers then Let's slightly amend the process in my earlier post to see if we can reach agreement:

1) Viewing
2) Offer made, negotiated and accepted.
3) Nominal (minimum of say, £200) non-refundable deposit paid to cover expenses/logistics of sea trial.
4a) After sea trial, contract is signed, subject to survey, etc.
4b) Broker supplies buyer with Client Account details including letter from bank confirming account is protected from normal business use by broker. Client account backed by insurance indemnity by broker's professional body.
4c) 5% deposit paid (less amount paid at point 3). Boat now has 'sale pending' status. Buyer and seller legally committed via contract.
5) Survey, mechanical checks and re-negotiation if necessary.
6) Seller passes all paperwork to broker relating to ownership, registration, receipts, manuals, etc.
7) Balance of purchase price paid into broker's Client Account and ownership of boat immediately transfers to buyer, along with bill of sale, transfer of registration and all paperwork, manuals, etc.
8) Handover keys.

Comments, objections, suggestions?

Just trying to improve what I perceive to be a situation that puts some people off, especially prospective first-time boat owners.

Wouldn't it be easier, quicker and simpler to swap 4c to 3, make it 10% and refundable, have the boat held for purchaser at that point, and then the seller has some genuine intent and the buyer knows the boat is not going to get sold from under him once the price is agreed?

Yes, I'm sure that would work.

 

[Renegade_Master]

Ari swapping 3 for 4c is back to the standard procedure, CF is suggesting an alternative to facilitate a "paid for sea trial" which may have some merit. He did say minimum sum £200 so it is not cast in stone, the owner can ascertain the approx cost depending on size and fuel consumption etc and specify what he wants.

Could work, and as I said should put off joy riders

 

[Nautibusiness]

Wouldn't it be easier, quicker and simpler to swap 4c to 3, make it 10% and refundable, have the boat held for purchaser at that point, and then the seller has some genuine intent and the buyer knows the boat is not going to get sold from under him once the price is agreed?

Yes, I'm sure that would work.

Ari
You are hitting your head on a brick wall.
The tens of thousands of boats sold over the years via lots of UK brokers using this exact template have all been dealt with wrongly with dreadful misjusdices done to the purchasers and all the brokers in cahoots with each other in an effort to screw every last penny from anyone involved (oddly even the purchaser despite him not being charged anything for services from the broker) and deeply in bed with the marina to screw the buyer for dreadful lift fees, heaven forbid a surveyor and possibly, yes just possibly, the broker may even suggest that the new owner keeps the boat in the marina they are based at! What a bloody cheek, the marina will want paying for that too!