Discount on shore storage for inability to go to boat and carry out work???

[steveeasy]

Thanks for the clear explanation. As you say the problem is when they refuse and the amount of money in dispute is relatively small. You probably then get into the arena of implied terms and other contract law issues. I believe one group were subject of a class action but on an individual costs basis its not worth chasing it.

How simple was that. I will bear it in mind later this year though when im told to go home each night.

Steveeasy

 

[JumbleDuck]

If there is no legal requirement for the yard closing (and I’d be surprised if there was) then the yard would probably be in breach of their contract with you by refusing you access to your boat.

What does your contract say about access?

There is no legal or contractual duty allowing the yard to refuse you contractual services because they would be “facilitating“ an illegal activity!

So it all comes down to what level of access is specified in your contract.

 

[Moodysailor]

Following on from the recent threads above, the yard / marina may well claim or state that they are refusing access from visitors due to their required COVID policy. Every business that remains open has to have a COVID policy in order to guarantee a safe working environment, and if theirs has stated that the risk to their employees is too great, then this may be a contributing factor in their decision.

If (and I say if as I am not in possession of the facts) this is the case then there will be a clause in the contract that they can lean on - our one has an "events outside our control" clause which states they are entitled to suspend any obligations under their contract during this time. Furthermore, ours also has a clause which states they can seek recompense from us if we cause damage or injury to their people or property (an example could well be an vessel owner or their guest giving an employee COVID). This clause also extends to people working on the boat!

Personally, I think seeing recompense via contract terms is a long shot and unlikely to work, most likely they will just clam up and refer to the various terms and clauses if you try that. I deal a lot with contracts in my line of work and we say that if communication has broken down to the stage where we are going through the contract terms then the damage to the relationship is already done. In almost all cases you are better off talking and negotiating directly. The only people who benefit from a contract discussion are the legal teams! Even more so with a small claim.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Following on from the recent threads above, the yard / marina may well claim or state that they are refusing access from visitors due to their required COVID policy. Every business that remains open has to have a COVID policy in order to guarantee a safe working environment, and if theirs has stated that the risk to their employees is too great, then this may be a contributing factor in their decision.

If (and I say if as I am not in possession of the facts) this is the case then there will be a clause in the contract that they can lean on - our one has an "events outside our control" clause which states they are entitled to suspend any obligations under their contract during this time. Furthermore, ours also has a clause which states they can seek recompense from us if we cause damage or injury to their people or property (an example could well be an vessel owner or their guest giving an employee COVID). This clause also extends to people working on the boat!

Personally, I think seeing recompense via contract terms is a long shot and unlikely to work, most likely they will just clam up and refer to the various terms and clauses if you try that. I deal a lot with contracts in my line of work and we say that if communication has broken down to the stage where we are going through the contract terms then the damage to the relationship is already done. In almost all cases you are better off talking and negotiating directly. The only people who benefit from a contract discussion are the legal teams! Even more so with a small claim.

This is all very interesting but the answer was given by @dom in post #4 as back in May last year the CMA decided that refunds are due.

Clearly there remains a practical issue as last time around while the main operators provided discounts, another was taken to court and there are reports here of others simply refusing to do so.

BTW in an earlier post you complained about people reading ambiguity to there own 'advantage' but that is exactly what they are entitled to do.

 

[Moodysailor]

This is all very interesting but the answer was given by @dom in post #4 as back in May last year the CMA decided that refunds are due.

Clearly there remains a practical issue as last time around while the main operators provided discounts, another was taken to court and there are reports here of others simply refusing to do so.

BTW in an earlier post you complained about people reading ambiguity to there own 'advantage' but that is exactly what they are entitled to do.

I don't dispute the earlier points, but I would just like to make the case that there was a huge amount of uncertainty and confusion during lockdown #1 over what business could/should be permitted to do - it's hardly surprising mistakes were made. I doubt that to be the case this time around, so I would advise to be 100% clear on the facts (as I stated above) before pulling out the contract and asking for a rebate - it may well be that this is already being processed by the facility. Our own business has reviewed and revised our COVID policy, and it bears almost no resemblance to the one we hastily produced last spring

I'm not sure I agree with your wording - "entitled" to use ambiguity to ones own advantage is just pendency in another form. Yes ambiguity exists, but trying to claim entitlement to take advantage of it just leads to a cat-and-mouse game where ever stricter rules and regulations are imposed as those who are caught out tighten the loopholes. I experienced this first-hand when working in the US, and have started to see it here. It's a personal opinion, but I would much rather see us uphold both the spirit, and the letter of the rule as this tends to prevent those in higher positions of authority over-scrutinising us 'minions'. IMO, those that have found a little piece of 'ambiguity haven' are almost duty-bound not to tell all and sundry about it - only bad can come from bragging... ;-)

 

[bdh198]

Personally, I think seeing recompense via contract terms is a long shot and unlikely to work, most likely they will just clam up and refer to the various terms and clauses if you try that. I deal a lot with contracts in my line of work and we say that if communication has broken down to the stage where we are going through the contract terms then the damage to the relationship is already done. In almost all cases you are better off talking and negotiating directly. The only people who benefit from a contract discussion are the legal teams! Even more so with a small claim.

I think that’s spot on. It really isn’t going to be worth kicking off under the contractual terms unless you are caused some serious loss. Inconvenience or frustration at missing out on some non-essential winter maintenance is just something we’re going to have to suffer until this pandemic is under control. If, however, you do have a lawful reason for visiting your boat (which would amount to a “reasonable excuse” under the regulations) you’re probably far better off communicating with your yard/marina and agreeing mutually acceptable approach to you doing a visit and completing the work.