Deposit

[Tranona]

Vendor says "Mr Mashy and i made a verbal agreement that he would pay a non refundable £500 deposit and would pay the balance within 48 hours, or the boat would be sold to the next interested party. Th balance was not paid withing 48 hours and i sold the boat to someone else"

Prove that wasn't the case.

That is pure speculation and not what the OP said. We know nothing about any conditions - only "pay the deposit and the boat is yours"

Like much of the guesswork your seller's condition or something like it could well be correct as this is the sort of detail the OP has not communicated but is possible as a defence.

When looking at disputes under contract law it is the FACTS that matter - not the might haves. Relatively easy if the contract is written, but difficult when it is verbal. One looks for the necessary elements of the contract in the evidence presented by both parties. Inevitably at some point the court will have to decide which party to believe.

Based on the evidence presented so far by the OP there is nothing to suggest the bank has failed, the seller did not receive the deposit, no suggestion of fraud or misrepresentation or any criminal offence. Just a simple dispute between a buyer and seller. A civil matter resolved by negotiation, mediation or as a last resort the court.

 

[PaulRainbow]

That is pure speculation and not what the OP said. We know nothing about any conditions - only "pay the deposit and the boat is yours"

Like much of the guesswork your seller's condition or something like it could well be correct as this is the sort of detail the OP has not communicated but is possible as a defence.

For crying out loud, it's not speculation or guesswork.

It's just an example of how easy it would be for the vendor to avoid any charges of fraud, theft, scamming etc.

When looking at disputes under contract law it is the FACTS that matter - not the might haves. Relatively easy if the contract is written, but difficult when it is verbal. One looks for the necessary elements of the contract in the evidence presented by both parties. Inevitably at some point the court will have to decide which party to believe.

Based on the evidence presented so far by the OP there is nothing to suggest the bank has failed, the seller did not receive the deposit, no suggestion of fraud or misrepresentation or any criminal offence. Just a simple dispute between a buyer and seller. A civil matter resolved by negotiation, mediation or as a last resort the court.

You don't know any of that for sure, just guesswork and speculation, based on flimsy forum posts.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

That is pure speculation and not what the OP said. We know nothing about any conditions - only "pay the deposit and the boat is yours"

Like much of the guesswork your seller's condition or something like it could well be correct as this is the sort of detail the OP has not communicated but is possible as a defence.

When looking at disputes under contract law it is the FACTS that matter - not the might haves. Relatively easy if the contract is written, but difficult when it is verbal. One looks for the necessary elements of the contract in the evidence presented by both parties. Inevitably at some point the court will have to decide which party to believe.

Based on the evidence presented so far by the OP there is nothing to suggest the bank has failed, the seller did not receive the deposit, no suggestion of fraud or misrepresentation or any criminal offence. Just a simple dispute between a buyer and seller. A civil matter resolved by negotiation, mediation or as a last resort the court.

I agree with you up to the last paragraph, there is no way to tell if it is either a simple dispute contractual if you like or a fraud a scam. That needs to be determined before any recovery of money can be pursued. My personal view is that it is probably a scam but it could be the case of contractual terms of a verbal agreement not being met ie a specific time to pay the balance and take possession of the boat on the basis of a none returnable deposit if not completed, only the OP can answer that question and he has conspicuously failed to do so.

 

[Tranona]

You don't know any of that for sure, just guesswork and speculation, based on flimsy forum posts.

I do - and so will you if you read the OPs posts. That is exactly what he tells us. anything else like the condition your refer to is purely guesswork on your part. The OP said the only condition was "pay the deposit and it is yours" - nothing about refundable or otherwise or a time limit - that is just your imagination.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I do - and so will you if you read the OPs posts. That is exactly what he tells us. anything else like the condition your refer to is purely guesswork on your part. The OP said the only condition was "pay the deposit and it is yours" - nothing about refundable or otherwise or a time limit - that is just your imagination.

No the OP didn't say it was the only condition in fact he mentioned no conditions all he said was that the seller said " it's mine" after the deposit was paid which infers that the money was received. We know nothing else about the transaction specifically were there conditions.

 

[Tranona]

I agree with you up to the last paragraph, there is no way to tell if it is either a simple dispute contractual if you like or a fraud a scam. That needs to be determined before any recovery of money can be pursued. My personal view is that it is probably a scam but it could be the case of contractual terms of a verbal agreement not being met ie a specific time to pay the balance and take possession of the boat on the basis of a none returnable deposit if not completed, only the OP can answer that question and he has conspicuously failed to do so.

See response to Paul.

Why do you all have so much difficulty in just dealing with the "facts" as presented by the OP?

You are right there is no way of telling from what the OP says whether it is fraud - so why do you all keep on making up scenarios that are not there in the OPs request for advice.

On the FACTS it is a simple dispute to be resolved in the way that jfm and I have suggested - but I guess that is our training that requires us to identify the relevant facts and give advice accordingly. Of course we would ask for more information which might reveal a different picture and that may change the advice. However as I said earlier if the thread was on all the things that can go wrong in a boat purchase then there is a lot of useful stuff here on how to avoid the pitfalls and sort them out when things go wrong.

 

[Tranona]

No the OP didn't say it was the only condition in fact he mentioned no conditions all he said was that the seller said " it's mine" after the deposit was paid which infers that the money was received. We know nothing else about the transaction specifically were there conditions.

Read post#18 again. I think you have misunderstood. That is a condition - if he (the OP) pays the deposit he has secured the boat. The seller failed to deliver so is in breach.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

See response to Paul.

Why do you all have so much difficulty in just dealing with the "facts" as presented by the OP?

You are right there is no way of telling from what the OP says whether it is fraud - so why do you all keep on making up scenarios that are not there in the OPs request for advice.

On the FACTS it is a simple dispute to be resolved in the way that jfm and I have suggested - but I guess that is our training that requires us to identify the relevant facts and give advice accordingly. Of course we would ask for more information which might reveal a different picture and that may change the advice. However as I said earlier if the thread was on all the things that can go wrong in a boat purchase then there is a lot of useful stuff here on how to avoid the pitfalls and sort them out when things go wrong.

The facts as you declare them are sketchy to say the least and as far as can be ascertained the only facts are that the OP paid £500 by transfer as a deposit on a boat, the money was received, the seller informed the OP the boat was his, . There is no way of knowing from any of that the seller sold the boat to someone else, the OP has not received a refund, the seller refuses now to communicate with the OP.
There is no way of knowing from any of that if it was a contractual dispute and failure on the OPs part or a fraudulent act on the sellers part and without investigation it cannot be determined. Thus all answers are hypothetical based on the respondents interpretation of events. Mine are that the OP has fallen victim to a scam which needs proper investigation to stop it happening again. It is also possible that it is a contractual dispute which is your interpretation.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Read post#18 again. I think you have misunderstood. That is a condition - if he (the OP) pays the deposit he has secured the boat. The seller failed to deliver so is in breach.

In your scenario of a contractual dispute correct unless there were conditions surrounding non returnable deposits based on something like a time for completion. Something quite reasonable to avoid fender kickers. But we don't know.

 

[PaulRainbow]

I do - and so will you if you read the OPs posts. That is exactly what he tells us. anything else like the condition your refer to is purely guesswork on your part. The OP said the only condition was "pay the deposit and it is yours" - nothing about refundable or otherwise or a time limit - that is just your imagination.

No you don't. You have a few sketchy posts from the OP.

You're doing the same as everyone else, trying to fill the blanks in with possible scenarios. Only difference is, you are being arrogant in insisting that your guesses are absolutely correct and anyone who has a different theory is wrong.

 

[ari]

He didn't say much of anything. I'm not sure why you're all assuming your imaginary information is better. I didn't even say that was the case, I said it's a good way to officially document what IS the case. Either way, if it's a scam, the banks are the ones collecting the information the police will use, so need to be told in order to flag an account. It's idiotic to not get them involved as early as possible. The police don't care unless you have some information, and there's no route to information here without involving the bank.

It's not 'imaginary information' it is simple comprehension of the English language. He told us that he's sent a bloke a deposit for a boat and the bloke has been ghosting him ever since.

He did not tell us that he sent a bloke a deposit for a boat and the bloke didn't receive it.

The only person relying on imaginary information is you to try and justify your claim that the bank will cheerfully refund him. As has been made extremely clear by many people now, no they won't. You cannot ring the bank and ask for a refund because you're not happy with the way that a deal has gone. It would be insanity if you could, no one would be able to sell anything without fear of their buyer later calling the bank and asking for a refund.

 

[lustyd]

He did not tell us that he sent a bloke a deposit for a boat and the bloke didn't receive it.

And neither did they say he did.

I didn’t say the bank would refund him, I said they have a process to deal with disputed transfers. That process might return the money if it did go to the wrong place and it would force the vendor to acknowledge if it went to the right place. In both instances the bank will flag the account for potential fraud and keep a close eye on it. I know they do this because part of my job is working with the data science teams at banks.

You’re misinterpreting what I said, I’m not quite sure why.

 

[jfm]

But your plan still involves lying to the bank lustyd, by telling them you suspect the money went to the wrong place. There is no dispute in OP's situation about the bank transfer per se.

 

[Tranona]

No you don't. You have a few sketchy posts from the OP.

You're doing the same as everyone else, trying to fill the blanks in with possible scenarios. Only difference is, you are being arrogant in insisting that your guesses are absolutely correct and anyone who has a different theory is wrong.

Yes the "facts" are sketchy - that is why i am only considering them rather than "filling in" and inventing other things like many others including you are doing.

How many more times do I have to say

Buyer paid a deposit on a boat
Seller says if you pay the deposit the boat is yours
Seller then ignores buyer, sells the boat to somebody else and does not return deposit

Simple breach of contract, follow the procedure of negotiation, mediation and court

All this is drawn directly from the OPs posts - nothing added. Of course there will always be 2 sides and we only have one. No doubt if the OP provided more information as requested and particularly if we heard from the seller the advice might change.

He did add that he got confirmation from a third party that the seller did own the boat which does exist. No hint of a "scam". It was openly advertised on more than one occasion on Facebook.

And yet suddenly over 100 posts later you introduce the idea that the deposit was non refundable and offer was time constrained. That may well be a good defence from the seller - but that is not what was agreed according to the buyer. Likewise there is no suggestion the seller did not receive the deposit, and yet there are dozens of posts rambling on (often inaccurately) about dispute procedures with banks.

It is not arrogance because I am not guessing ANYTHING. Just responding to exactly what the OP asked.

Nothing has changed from the first advice given by myself and jfm, both of whom are qualified in this field - him far more than me. However as I pointed out earlier there is nothing clever about it - simple first year Contract Law.

 

[Tranona]

In your scenario of a contractual dispute correct unless there were conditions surrounding non returnable deposits based on something like a time for completion. Something quite reasonable to avoid fender kickers. But we don't know.

So why raise it? Lots of things we don't know but that has not stopped people inventing things so that they can talk about their "solutions" - often incorrectly.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

So why raise it? Lots of things we don't know but that has not stopped people inventing things so that they can talk about their "solutions" - often incorrectly.

You are assuming it was a breach of contract there is nothing to indicate that it was or isn't just the same way that I am concluding that there is the possibility of a scam neither of us know we are just going with what to each of us seems the most likely scenario. The question of in what way it could be breach of contract and by whom is again speculation as there could be several reasons.
In short we don't know and as the OP has gone very quiet about it we are unlikely to find out.

 

[ylop]

Lustyd (and Ylop) I'm following your argument but you are missing a crucial thing. To invoke the process where your bank looks into and moves to freeze (or whatever) a potentially misdirected/lost payment, you must represent to your bank that you believe the payment to have gone missing. In this case, that would involve lying, for pecuniary gain, which someone above will tell you is a criminal offence.

I think if you look back you'll see that was exactly the point I made when Lustyd first suggested potentially misleading the bank about the nature of the problem several pages ago. I'm not sure why you think I was suggesting anything of the sort.

 

[lustyd]

But your plan still involves lying to the bank lustyd, by telling them you suspect the money went to the wrong place. There is no dispute in OP's situation about the bank transfer per se.

It doesn’t as I’ve explained. It’s disappointing that you’re unable to grasp it but I can live with your ignorance just as happily as you seem to.

 

[Portofino]

In the early 90 s after a jet ski race from Marseille to st Tropez , we rested up in Cannes .I enquired about a safe place to launch to various marina capitainerie , had insurance etc .They just said here and pointed to cap California off Cannes .

Wife sat ashore on the mole reading a book …off I went .
About an hr later a gun boat came in to to little port towing my Seadoo .I was down below cuffed up .

They arrested me a gun point between the island and shore for speeding .

When berthed forced me to pay a €200 fine by debit card .

Police turned up threatening to send me to a magistrate court in the morning if I did not pay .Although lost in translation it might have been present myself in court in the morning .It’s a long time ago and memory fades ?

So wife ( had cards in her bag ) stumped up .

The sign showing the speeds in which zones was vandalised lying face down in the car park .

As the cops were dealing with me a Fr plated white van rocked up and three guys unloaded stand up skis ….subsequently launched and bombed around ( have to speed up to stand up ) in the very same space / area I was “ done “ .This was after working hrs by now the gun boat had tied up and the crew gone home leaving me arguing with the cops .
I did gesture to the cops, pointing at these other guys and they just shrugged there shoulders and drove off while wife + I were recovering our jet ski .

That night I felt pretty pissed off .

I took charts to 3 capitainere . No one said anything about speed limits .Ok it’s my responsibility to seek them .
The sign was face down and car wheel parked over it .
But what triggered the real anger was the different treatment of me ( a Brit ) to the local guys by the police .

So that night I phoned the bank and told the story and they stopped / sucked back the €200 from the Fr Gov account .
It was a DD card so this might be a crucial difference here ?
After the call we packed up and skipped town driving to Italy ( ferry back was Zebrugge ) so avoided Fr .

Point is the money went to the right account from mine .

I felt defrauded by the UNEQUAL treatment .Not the actual “crime “

Bank listened and recovered it . This was 1992 .

If the sign was up and I ignored it then fair cop .If the other three locals were fined as well then again fair cop .
There was nothing on the new charts and no one in any marina office when fingering the launch point said anything about speed limits .

 

[Tranona]

You are assuming it was a breach of contract there is nothing to indicate that it was or isn't just the same way that I am concluding that there is the possibility of a scam neither of us know we are just going with what to each of us seems the most likely scenario. The question of in what way it could be breach of contract and by whom is again speculation as there could be several reasons.
In short we don't know and as the OP has gone very quiet about it we are unlikely to find out.

It is not an assumption. It IS a breach of contract on the part of the seller IF what the buyer says is true. The seller has failed to deliver the boat as promised in post#18.

The sequence I outlined in post#154 is enough to show that a contract exists and the seller is in breach. Suggest you also look at post#48 for a more detailed account. jfm earns his crust doing this sort of stuff and I earned some of mine for 40 odd years teaching it at a basic level to beginners. If I were still doing that this thread and scenario would provide a good question for a first year exam, particularly if I added some of the speculative aspects like non refundable deposit, time constraints, rights to the boat etc. at a more advanced level one could add in some of the other ideas that could indicate fraud, deception, misrepresentation and so on.

BTW I have also personally made successful claims for breach of contract through Small Claims and resolved disputes with suppliers based their breach of contract in not supplying what they claimed and charged for. To do this one needs to have a strong case good evidence and presentation. The OP is probably lacking some or all of that, but it does not alter the fact that if what he has said is true has a case.