Buying from a broker, what's at risk ?

[Nautibusiness]

...and the the engineers
...the grp specialists
... the mechanics
...the cost of Volvo parts

They'll all be the fault of the broker and anyone evil enough and clearly a criminal, probably a peadophile too, for even thinking about working in the marine industry.

 

[ari]

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

I was making a point using a little irony. (Well, failing, clearly)

Current system might not be perfect, but it clearly works well enough.

Personally if I were selling a boat and someone wanted to come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful alternatives to "protect" themselves I think I'd be having second thoughts and looking for someone a little easier to deal with.

 

[ari]

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!

I think you're probably right.

Some people will always see things the way they want to see them.

 

[ColdFusion]

Oh dear, it looks like this thread has gone the way of many others on ybw. I have no axe to grind either way, but from numerous posts on ybw and various other forums it is clear to me (and others) that there is room for improvement in the current buying/selling process. But it seems some people, for whatever reason, won't entertain the thought of there being anything wrong with the present system. My suggested way forward was a compromise that I hoped could be seen as beneficial and fairer to both buyers and sellers - ultimately leading to more boats sales/purchases. All I have read so far from the critics is along the lines of 'it won't work' and 'there's nothing wrong with the current system'. I beg to differ.

 

[PaulGooch]

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.

It is not a private sale, although it could equally apply to one. As per the thread title and my own personal example, the discussion is about (or supposed to be about), brokerage sales.

Funny how Tranona and yourself are so entrenched in how you perceive the system must work, when the brokers in the thread seem to agree that a sea trial for personal evaluation wouldn't be out of the question.

It's obviously just some brokers, most likely staff that can't be bothered to do their job, that would lose a sale for a customer and their companies commission that would be obstinate and refuse a sea trial regardless.

 

[capsco]

All the suggestions of an alternative system would I think breakdown in case of,

Boat ashore and laid up, prospective buyer wants sea trial and agrees to pay costs, when he is told how much these costs are, I will leave that to members to work out, recomissioning, launch, fuel, then repeat to put it back to original position if not sold, do you think he will still be happy to pay?

 

[PaulGooch]

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.

You're just being pedantic now.

In the example i gave, the boat was a MF805 that burns 25 litres an hour. The £200 was an arbitrary figure for example purposes. There is not reason that there should be a set fee, an amount that would cover the costs is all that would be required.

 

[PaulGooch]

...and the the engineers
...the grp specialists
... the mechanics
...the cost of Volvo parts

They'll all be the fault of the broker and anyone evil enough and clearly a criminal, probably a peadophile too, for even thinking about working in the marine industry.

Tom, the thread was clearly posted as a genuine debate with regard to how certain things are done, or not done. It has been categorically stated time and again that it is not a dig at brokers in general or any particular broker. I have very clearly stated how i got excellent service from the broker who i bought my boat from and less than satisfactory service from another.

Please don't bring your childish World Sea Fishing attitude to these forums.

 

[PaulGooch]

All the suggestions of an alternative system would I think breakdown in case of,

Boat ashore and laid up, prospective buyer wants sea trial and agrees to pay costs, when he is told how much these costs are, I will leave that to members to work out, recomissioning, launch, fuel, then repeat to put it back to original position if not sold, do you think he will still be happy to pay?

In those cases, i think you're basically correct.

But, what i think you and some are assuming, is that the buyer is going to be just taking a sea trial for a paid for joy ride.

If he's genuinely interested in buying the boat, he may well still be up for it. He could pay the full 10%, under the agreement that he can back out if he really didn't like the boat, all the costs to be his. This would be no different to the current system, other than him being able to reject the boat because there was something about it he really didn't like. He'd be losing the same as if the boat had a major fault, but that would be his choice.

On a £150k boat, a buyer might consider that losing a few hundred £££ (or even a grand or so) would be preferable to having to fork out the £150k for a boat he doesn't like.

Either way, the seller wouldn't be losing out.

 

[PaulGooch]

The original post wasn't entirely about sea trial, although the thread has become focused on them. It's obvious that the system i general is what it is and many are happy with it. It's also obvious that some are not and there are cases where some flexibility would be helpful.

In post #38 Jonics shows that some brokers are prepared to be more flexible. Some clearly aren't.

As someone who has been involved in retail car sales for many years, i fully understand how tyre kickers work. Some buyers may want to try two similar makes/models of car because they can't choose between the two and seeing how they drive will help them make their decision. Some of them will want to try 6 different cars, all pretty much identical, which clearly seems a waste of time, but a refusal of a test drive will almost certainly lose all chances of a sale.

A good broker should be able to spot a fender kicker most of the time. Likewise, he should be able to spot a genuinely interested buyer who has a genuine reason for wanting a sea trial without making the absolute commitment that he must buy the boat, however much he dislikes the noise levels/handing/other characteristics of the boat.

In short, with regards to sea trials, although the current system seems to work for most people, most of the time, there is room for some improvement. IMO.

 

[Renegade_Master]

quote cold fusion: All I have read so far from the critics is along the lines of 'it won't work' and 'there's nothing ing wrong with the current system'. I beg to differ.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF why are you ignoring my posts? I agree you charge for a sea trial idea has merit

 

[ColdFusion]

CF why are you ignoring my posts? I agree you charge for a sea trial idea has merit

I'm not. I wasn't counting you as one of the critics.

 

[Nautibusiness]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF why are you ignoring my posts? I agree you charge for a sea trial idea has merit

The difficulty with a straight charge for a trial is that you will get far more people grumbling about that than actually working out what type of boat they want first and then going for it.
Believe me, we have tried that route before.

 

[PaulGooch]

The difficulty with a straight charge for a trial is that you will get far more people grumbling about that than actually working out what type of boat they want first and then going for it.
Believe me, we have tried that route before.

Tom, you have posted before that you take a deposit "subject to a satisfactory sea trial". What constitutes a satisfactory sea trial and under what circumstances would you personlly refund the deposit, in full, or in part ? In particular, would you consider that the buyers view that although there were no major faults with the boat, he considers it unsatisfactory because of a personal dislike, such as noise, ride, handling etc.

 

[PaulGooch]

The difficulty with a straight charge for a trial is that you will get far more people grumbling about that than actually working out what type of boat they want first and then going for it.
Believe me, we have tried that route before.

It isn't about charging for a sea trial per se. It's more about giving a buyer a sea trial to try a boat that he thinks he would like to buy, with the option of pulling out of the deal if he doesn't like the boat, whilst the seller retains any out of pocket expenses for the trial.

 

[Renegade_Master]

"seller retains any out of pocket expenses for the trial. "


so how many of these free sea trials on my Princess 560 (1.5 gpm) do you think I should do for free to wouldbe buyers, before I could draw the line and stop spending?

 

[PaulGooch]

"seller retains any out of pocket expenses for the trial. "


so how many of these free sea trials on my Princess 560 (1.5 gpm) do you think I should do for free to wouldbe buyers, before I could draw the line and stop spending?

If you've retained the costs associated with the sea trial, i don't see how you are spending.

An hour ago, you said the idea had merit, what's changed ?

 

[Nautibusiness]

It isn't about charging for a sea trial per se. It's more about giving a buyer a sea trial to try a boat that he thinks he would like to buy, with the option of pulling out of the deal if he doesn't like the boat, whilst the seller retains any out of pocket expenses for the trial.

You can't simply take someone for a trial because they pop in the office and say,

"I fancy buying a boat and that one looks nice. Can I have a go please?"

You need to qualify them enough to find out whether they
a) Really fancy buying a boat
b) "That one" really is the one they should be buying

Once properly qualified, if everything looks positive then suject to satisfactory sea trial should be no problem. At the end of the day if the buyer has let you know exactly what he wants and you know that this particular make and model do exactly that then the sea trial will not fail unless the boat breaks, sinks, engine blows up etc etc.
If properly qualified you have minimised the risk of the sea trial not being satisfactory unless the buyer has given you a complete load of twaddle in the process (and some a very good at that) and this is where the 10% deposit comes in. Refundable or not, handing someone a big wedge like that to look after for you isn't going to happen if you are just full of twaddle.

Paying a non refundable fee works in principal, but when the first question someone asks is "Can I have a test drive please", it is harder to properly qualify them in the first place.
You end up wasting a hell of a lot of time messing about on the water.

 

[Renegade_Master]

If you've retained the costs associated with the sea trial, i don't see how you are spending.

An hour ago, you said the idea had merit, what's changed ?

sorry Paul misread your post (must be age) you are talking about getting a fee from the buyer for the sea trial which , yes I agree is an idea that has merit.

 

[Renegade_Master]

take you point nautibusiness, on occasion I have had customers come to me and give me a spec for a vessel they want, make , size year, model price guide etc. They leave it with me to seek out such a vessel. In these instances I have confidence that if I find a vessel which meets his requirements then the chances are a free sea trial (with owners permission) is on the cards, as I know he is serious.

On the other hand someone walks in the shops having picked a boat from the window display saying he is looking for a boat not sure what he wants yet, but can he try out this one. Not really on.