Duff tender options

[Wiggo]

So I bought a Bombard AX500 with a Johnson 9.9/15 and a console at the end of June. I asked the dealer for suggestions for a small lightweight rib that would act as a tender for four but have enough grunt to pull the kids on a ringo and maybe waterski. The Bombard/Johnson was his suggestions. Cracking little rig, but...

At the start of August, with the boat barely 6 weeks old, I noticed a large crack in the bow, and a lot of stress cracking. We used the boat once more in August and returned it to the dealer for inspection/rectification third week of August. By this point, a thorough inspection revealed major cracking of the hull to the extent that the hull was letting in water.

The dealer was waiting for the manufacturer to look at it, then he was waiting till after the boatshow, now he tells me that Bombard's opinion is that the boat has been driven too hard. His words: "It looks like it's been driven like a jetski, not a tender."

I asked what he intended to do about it, and he said he was witing for Bombard to decide if they would accept a warranty claim. I pointed out that my contract was with him, and he refused to replace the boat. I asked him what he intended to do, and he said he would repair at his cost if Bombard would not honour the warranty, to which I pointed out that the hull was not repairable, and that if he could not replace I would reject and claim a refund. He refused to refund and claimed I had no right to one (crap, I know).

Where do I go from here, bearing in mind others' experience of rejecting a new boat? Reject and immediately go to small claims court? Ideas, please.

 

[cliffdale]

dunno Wiggo. This could be an interesting thread for us all.

I once tried to reject a new car and lost a lot of money trying to!

I would not accept a repair, the car pulled quite hard to the left. Like you, i was fighting a dealer who harped on about the manufactures warranty. I let the dealers test the car but insisted that a repair was not acceptable.

The dealers letters only comfirmed that the car was built "within the manufactures specifications".

The laws aimed at protecting us against faulty goods do not seem to apply to cars and boats.

In the end after months of letters, trying to get watchdog involved, I gave up and allowed repairs to go ahead. The car had new front end suspension and steering fitted.

Cliff

 

[CLion]

Wiggo, I am sorry to hear your tale of woe. I am not a lawyer but I would suggest rejecting the rib as not of merchantable quality. Unfortunately this could involve lengthy and expensive legal action if the dealer does not respond positively

/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[cliffdale]

Having experienced similar, you will need to get an independent suveyors reports confirming that the RIB was manufacted to a sub standard quality.

The surveyor will have to also confirm that the damage was not caused by you using the boat as a jet ski.

Even armed with this, if you have an un supportive dealer, things could become costly.

 

[RogerRat]

[ QUOTE ]
. I asked the dealer for suggestions for a small lightweight rib that would act as a tender for four but have enough grunt to pull the kids on a ringo and maybe waterski. The Bombard/Johnson was his suggestions. Cracking little rig, but....

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Graham,

I think the first big question is can you prove the AX500 was the dealer's recommendation based on your description of needs?

As I understand your rights under the, 'Sale of goods act' the product should be of merchantable quality and suitable for the purpose for which it was purchased.

Any problems with a products' merch' quality should come to light within a "Reasonable period" Probably 1-2 yrs for a product of this type would be reasonable.

But if the hull has cracked it obviously unsuitable for your needs. To be fair, if you had wanted a 'tender' any inflatable air-deck or slatted floor with 5Hp would have done the job.

Nobody puts 15Hp on a Rib unless they want a fairly lively performance!
IMHO, both the manufacturer and the dealer are being tight and are very likely to put quite a large audience off Bombard inflatables.

It's like a small case of Gludy's Trader, who would want one? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[Kawasaki]

You bought a boat of him (dealer man).
He (dealer man) advised you that it would do what you asked.

I f it,s bust cos it wouldn,t do what you asked and he(dealer man ) said it would.
It,s down to him not the Manufacturer/distributor.

In any case it,s as usual in these cases it,s down to Him (dealer man) to provide you with "Goods fit for the use intended".

If He says he can fix it f.o.c , great let Him fix it.

Then take it back a Month later, tell Him how pleased you are with the boat and His after sales service. Trade it in with Him for a more suitable boat for the purpose you want. IE "This boat has been so good since you sorted it out I,d like to go upmarket"!
Take pleasure in seeing Him squirm His way out of that scenario and stitch Him back up with the duff boat!
Ok it,l cost you a bit but your out of the lemon, got a better boat and you,ve avoided claims and courts and you,ve slotted Him!!!

 

[sarabande]

Have you seen the letter from Bombard ? If not, then ask the dealer for a copy.

Are there any emails or letters prior to purchase, from the dealer recommending the model for a certain range of uses ?

Is the capacity plate still on the boat, and does it give a max hp for the motor ?

HAS anyone stuffed the boat into a solid object and not told you ?

The Bombard website RIB info
recommends a max power of 10 hp, and a recommended power of 8hp. You mention a 9.9/15 outboard. If you were sold the 15hp version Johnson by the dealer, it looks as if he's overpowered the boat, and you are lucky it didn't flip and kill someone.

Keep us all posted please.

 

[landlockedpirate]

I am not sure wether I have mis understood the post, you say that you have used a 9.9/15 engine. From memory the AX only takes a maximum of 10hp, if this is the case surely fitting an oversized engine will have some impact on the warranty situation.

Just realised someone beat me to this point !

Mark

 

[MidlandsOnSea]

Although I am a lawyer, this isn't exactly my area so for heaven's sake don't take this email as gospel. Unless the law in this area has changed recently, you'll find it comes down to whether the thing was of 'satisfactory quality'. One aspect of this is whether it could be used for its intended purpose. If you made it clear that the purpose included acting as a tow for ringo or waterski, then that goes in your favour. There are various things they might use to defend your claim (such as relying on small print on the back of an order form). If that happens, it's worth bearing in mind that contracts with consumers (that means ordinary folks, as opposed to businesses) get protection against 'unfair contract terms'. In short, the small print wouldn't necessarily hold water (if you'll excuse the pun).

Does your marine insurance included legal expenses cover? Might be worth a look.

PS any lawyers put there who think this is total rubbish, feel free to shout. I've had nothing to do with consumer contracts for many years. I shall be happy to be educated.

 

[cliffdale]

I cant imagine the dealer admitting he advised his customer to put an overpowered engine on the rib. That would almost certainly make him liable for any claim.

I still think the most valuable bit of paper will be the surveyors report. Will the discussion between client and dealer be classed as hear say and have little worth?

 

[Wiggo]

Ah well. At his suggestion, the engine fitted is a 'Johnson GT', which he told me is a 15hp motor restricted to 10, and "just what you're looking for" as it "looks like a 10 from the outside. He apparently removed the restrictor before we took delivery. On handover, I asked himwas there a restrictor to be removed if I wanted more performance, "You don't need to worry about that," he said with a wink and grin.

There was no danger of flipping, as I specified a console, putting the driver's weight well forward. Before it started to break up, it went like a scalded cat. However, what was noticeable was that even at low speed, you could feel the hull flex over even small (6") waves, so this had sod all to do with being overpowered.

 

[LeroyH]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah well. At his suggestion, the engine fitted is a 'Johnson GT', which he told me is a 15hp motor restricted to 10, and "just what you're looking for" as it "looks like a 10 from the outside. He apparently removed the restrictor before we took delivery. On handover, I asked himwas there a restrictor to be removed if I wanted more performance, "You don't need to worry about that," he said with a wink and grin.

There was no danger of flipping, as I specified a console, putting the driver's weight well forward. Before it started to break up, it went like a scalded cat. However, what was noticeable was that even at low speed, you could feel the hull flex over even small (6") waves, so this had sod all to do with being overpowered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got no chance because it was more than the boat could take and why get a bigger restricted one if you were not going to use it, that is daft you would have got a proper sized one if that wasnt the case, you have bust it I reckon going to fast or someone has, you are now trying to blame the dealer with the wink comment when you were going to do it anyway

 

[hlb]

Dont mess about. Google Small Claims Court. Depends how much the boat is worth as to which steps or method you can take.

Goods have to be fit for purpose and for a reasonable period. Up to about six years in some cases.

Your situation does not sound that much different to mine. You asked the dealer to fit you up with the right combination.

I bought a pair of speakers. Took the amp to the shop for them to match. £900 for the speakers.

Had a bit of a row with exwife. She wammed volume to the top. I turned it down within a second, but damage done. Speakers completly stuffed.

We had only had them a week.

Took them back. Shop said they had been abused. Would not listen to the fact, they'd married them to 100w per channel amp.

Wrang solicitor. Said it was not worth him getting involved. But go to SCC and you will win, no iffs or buts.

So I did. Cheque arrived just before court case.

The law is very clear. Fit for purpose. So if what you say is right. I dont doubt it.

He sold you something that was not fit for the perpose he'd sold it for. Or he should not have sold that dinghy with that engine.

 

[Wiggo]

Nope, sorry. I defined my intended use, and the dealer supplied and fitted a motor which was suitable for the boat. He then knowingly derestricted it. Any possible future intentions of mine have no bearing on the matter.

As anyone who knows anything about small outboards will know, almost all 10hp motors are restriced 15s, just like 6hp motors are actually 8's with different carb jetting. I ouwld have been happy to try the boat in its 'standard' trim, and I suspect it's performance would have been adequate. However, all this is irrelevant: the dealer knowingly supplied a boat that started to break up within 6 weeks, and had not been driven hard (whatever that may mean). It is very clearly not of merchantable quality. For God's sake, even driven hard a boat should not have the GRP broken through (not just the gel, but a tear clean through the hull) after 6 weeks.

 

[hlb]

H'mm just read the last bit. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif But If he removed it, still his fault. Might be a bit more difficult to prove though. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[LeroyH]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, sorry. I defined my intended use, and the dealer supplied and fitted a motor which was suitable for the boat. He then knowingly derestricted it. Any possible future intentions of mine have no bearing on the matter.

As anyone who knows anything about small outboards will know, almost all 10hp motors are restriced 15s, just like 6hp motors are actually 8's with different carb jetting. I ouwld have been happy to try the boat in its 'standard' trim, and I suspect it's performance would have been adequate. However, all this is irrelevant: the dealer knowingly supplied a boat that started to break up within 6 weeks, and had not been driven hard (whatever that may mean). It is very clearly not of merchantable quality. For God's sake, even driven hard a boat should not have the GRP broken through (not just the gel, but a tear clean through the hull) after 6 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it would because the engine was to powerful for the boat that is so simple to see. you knew that and didnt care so it is your fault and were going to do it anyway, and going to do it anyway means you were probably seeing how fast it would go which is natural because you wanted to know how fast it would go and you bust it. why not get a proper boat for the job you wanted it for.

 

[Nautorius]

I had a similar experience with two cars our company bought. Both were Saab 9-5's from Saab of london. Both were 'chipped' when new by the dealer. 1 yr later at about 45,000 miles both engines blew up and we were left with £5k bills for each repair. We stated that as the dealer had chipped the cars and as the dealer was a main agent we pressumed they were acting within the parameters of the engine by chipping them (they did not tell us any different at the time) Saab rejected warranty claim but dealer in the end accepted it was their fault and replaced engines. We used no fancy lawyers and even company council did not get involved. We just fought our side and it took 3 months but we got new engines in the end.

From what we learnt it was the dealers responsibility to repair as they had sold the cars chipped which was incorrect of them. Their screw up, their cost.

I would hound the dealer as no rib should break up that easily!

Good luck,

Paul /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[cliffdale]

Sounds to me like Leroy is missing the point.

 

[Wiggo]

Umm, no, I relied on the advice of the dealer. He specified the combination, he apparently removed the restrictor (I have no way of knowing if he did or not, to be truthful). He supplied a boat/engine/console package that, taken together is not of merchantable quality and not fit for the purpose for which it was bought.

 

[rickp]

Interesting that Leroy chose to make his first and second posts on this particular thread, mmm?

Rick