Disclosure (used boats)

[tcm]

Re: it\'s about value effect, not repair quality

No, not at all. Jfm is referring to major structure-threatening crunches, not that night when I threw up over your dashboard which cleaned up fairly okay. Oops! I can explain...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: it\'s about value effect, not repair quality

Hey, I don't disagree there is a diminution in value in the cases you describe (or would be if purchasers knew about the damage). I'm just doubting that there is a legal duty on the seller to disclose it. If you can show where such a duty exists, I would feel more comfortable about buying a used boat.

My suggestion to have a list of written disclosure questions is designed to draw out this type of issue. This must put the buyer in a better position than if specific questions had not been asked. If there is a misrepresentation (as I remember a deliberately untruthful response would be a fraudulent misrepresentation), the buyer will have a better line of recourse to the seller for damages or rescission.

You're saying there is a legal duty on seller to disclose material defect AND previous material damage, even if repaired. If that's right - great. But where does it arise, because it's not in the Sale of Goods Act?

In the meantime, I would recommend purchasers provide a list of written questions on the lines suggested above. Do you agree?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re:In the real world

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

This turns the idea of selling into a nightmare for the average seller

<hr></blockquote>

Equally, buying a used boat can turn into a nightmare for an average buyer.

Look, I'm not suggesting buyers should expect to take no risk in buying used goods and that sellers should take all the risk - or vice versa. There needs to be a balance. There is always a conflict of interest between buyer and seller starting with the fundamental issue of price.

The reason legal disputes happen (in contract) is most often because people enter into contracts without being fully aware of the allocation of risks. If there's more clarity at the start, there's less risk of dispute.

The point of the disclosure questions is not to impose an unreasonable burden on the seller but to concentrate seller's and buyer's minds on issues which are important to them.

If I'm a buyer, I would like to see the questions put in the way they're listed above because it leaves the seller with more rather than less risk. If that's not acceptable to the seller, I may have to compromise.

A seller who hasn't owned the boat from new may want to qualify questions 1 - 3 by adding "to the best of my knowledge" or "so far as I am aware" (assuming he is intending to give negative response) and perhaps add "material" to the question about defects. Of course, if there is (or he suspects there is) something to hide, he may be unhappy about answering the questions at all - which should set alarm bells ringing for the buyer. And that's quite reasonable.

So, yes, if I was a seller, I would be willing to honestly answer questions of this nature. It's not a guarantee that nothing will go wrong in the future but a formal statement that I have honestly disclosed matters which are important to the buyer.


<hr width=100% size=1>