Fairline Boats purchased

[Nick_H]

I must admit that like everybody else we put a retention of title clause on our invoices but the main problem is actually enforcing it. It is very unlikely that your customer is simply going to hand the goods back to you and the administrator will insist on incontrovertible proof that the goods he sees on your customer's premises are those covered by your unpaid invoices and that is usually very difficult.

It's not unusual for administrators to invite claims for retention of title, maybe it's even law that they have to do that, I don't know. We looked at buying a business in admin recently, and in the data room was a list of creditors, separated between those who had claimed retention of title, and those who had not. As you say, the administrator has to investigate those claims, but his advice to us in determining our bid was to assume they were all genuine, and that the goods would not be included in the sale.

 

[gjgm]

what is so newsworthy about a half built boat being completed, which was bought for a knock down price from the administrator and contains components that in all likelihood some of the suppliers weren't paid for

Well,can't be many of those!

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

As you say, the administrator has to investigate those claims, but his advice to us in determining our bid was to assume they were all genuine, and that the goods would not be included in the sale.

I have to say that, thankfully, it is a good few years since we were caught in this way but the last time this happened, the administrator took the opposite view. We were told that unless we could prove that the items (spare parts) for which we were claiming retention of title were specifically related to the unpaid invoices, our claim would be denied, even though the items in question were stamped with part numbers and those part numbers were referenced on the invoices. The only way I could see of proving our claim would have been if each part was stamped with a unique identifying number but of course they weren't

Maybe the regulations governing administration have changed over the years, I don't know, but it looks like quite a few suppliers were caught by the Fairline administration so it still must be difficult to prove retention of title. I could understand though why an administrator might warn a potential buyer of the assets of the possibility that there might be a claim against them because I guess that the administrator owes the buyer a duty of care

 

[jfm]

... I guess that the administrator owes the buyer a duty of care

No he doesn't. The relationship is entirely contract. Crikey, the country hasn't gone that mad in making person A wipe person B's bottom!

 

[MapisM]

No he doesn't. The relationship is entirely contract. Crikey, the country hasn't gone that mad in making person A wipe person B's bottom!

Mmm... I don't think it's fair to compare the sort of safeguard which is being discussed with wiping anyone's bottom.
My understanding of these matters is way above the average understanding of a small supplier, let alone a company employee. And your understanding is stellar when compared to mine.
Therefore, you can't blame a small company for supplying what was once a company with a great reputation without considering what's going on behind the scenes between BC, WB etc., imho.

 

[BartW]

Therefore, you can't blame a small company for supplying what was once a company with a great reputation without considering what's going on behind the scenes between BC, WB etc., imho.

but also the opposite;
when a small company is suppliing to a reputated big company, there is no excuse to not fullfill their payment terms,
It is not because it is a reputated company, that they don't need to pay in time, or don't need to fulfill the agreed payment terms,

even to very big or reputated company's we (my rather small company) use a polite but strict credit controll system, (4 level system)
and in some cases put the big reputated customer on hold or prepayment...
and that is what is usually missing in small co's, with disaster consequences sometimes (imho)

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

No he doesn't. The relationship is entirely contract. Crikey, the country hasn't gone that mad in making person A wipe person B's bottom!

You mean the administrator can sell goods that he doesn't necessarily believe he has title to?

 

[BartW]

It's not unusual for administrators to invite claims for retention of title, maybe it's even law that they have to do that, I don't know. We looked at buying a business in admin recently, and in the data room was a list of creditors, separated between those who had claimed retention of title, and those who had not. As you say, the administrator has to investigate those claims, but his advice to us in determining our bid was to assume they were all genuine, and that the goods would not be included in the sale.

can"t the administrators place a limit in time that suppliers can claim retention of title ?
We had a case last year, we were officially informed about one of our customers going in to administration, and we immediately asked our lawyer to officially claim retention of some recently delivered goods. There was a deadline to do that iirc).
After that, we were officially invited by the administrator to go and find the goods in the inventary, together with a officier from the administrator.
All products with unique serial numbers, we got immediately, some products we didn't find anymore in the inventory, and for some products that didn't have sr nr's, it became clear that they were supplied by us, (optional extra's on other products) so we were allowed to take them,
but only on THAT day / that moment.

 

[petem]

Lots of good info here:

https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/casehelpmanual/R/RetentionOfTitle.htm

In particular "The best method of identification is where the goods are marked with the name of the supplier" so in the case of branded bags with the suppliers website address printed on the inside or some underwater lights that I assume have the manufacturers name stamped on them it would appear that identification of the unpaid for goods would be pretty straightforward. So I can't understand why these goods weren't reclaimed.

Pete

 

[petem]

Suppliers can certainly claim "retention of title" on goods they have supplied that have not been used or paid for, although I think there's a time limit. It normally seems to work that suppliers can get back items that were simply held in stock, but cannot get any value for items that have already been incorporated into work in progress (other than as unsecured creditors). This is how it's always worked for my company anyway, but I don't know the legal basis for it.

It depends if the goods can be detached. For example, you couldn't recover back flower that has already been used to bake bread but you could recover engines that had been installed in a boat.

 

[jfm]

Mmm... I don't think it's fair to compare the sort of safeguard which is being discussed with wiping anyone's bottom.
My understanding of these matters is way above the average understanding of a small supplier, let alone a company employee. And your understanding is stellar when compared to mine.
Therefore, you can't blame a small company for supplying what was once a company with a great reputation without considering what's going on behind the scenes between BC, WB etc., imho.

I totally agree. sorry, we're at crossed purposes. I didn't explain in much detail. See my reply to mike in a minute...

 

[jfm]

You mean the administrator can sell goods that he doesn't necessarily believe he has title to?

Hi Deleted User. sorry I didn't explain well. All I argued against was your assertion that administrator owes a duty of care to buyers of the assets. He doesn't owe any duty of care in that regard. There is so much bandying about of the term "duty of care" these days it's getting out of hand! The administrator owes only what he agrees he owes in the sale contract - the relationship is entirely one of contract and it is caveat emptor, so if the buyer buys assets and it turns out the original supplier still owns them then tough luck, unless the administrator undertook in the contract to retain that risk, which he wouldn't have done in this case. Bottom line: there is no general, implied or tortious duty of care in this type of transaction; there is only what is written in the contract, and when buying from a liquidator it is invariably caveat emptor. Returning to your question above, if liquidator has questionable title he would general sell such title and claim as he has with no promise made as to good title, and that is perfectly lawful.

 

[crazy4557]

Lots of good info here:

https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/casehelpmanual/R/RetentionOfTitle.htm

In particular "The best method of identification is where the goods are marked with the name of the supplier" so in the case of branded bags with the suppliers website address printed on the inside or some underwater lights that I assume have the manufacturers name stamped on them it would appear that identification of the unpaid for goods would be pretty straightforward. So I can't understand why these goods weren't reclaimed.

Pete

I was always told that to claim back via the 'retention of title clause' you needed to link the products to the unpaid invoice i.e have the invoice/job number printed on a label attached to the boxes so that you can clearly identify the goods that are unpaid.
In my case there's boxes of bags that are of no use to anyone apart from Fairline by virtue of the fact that their boats and logo's are printed on them for obvious reasons. To us they are a liability, no one else wants them and it costs us to collect and dispose of them. So, for us it's not worth chasing goods that will eventually become a liability.
If we had known that Fairline would have risen from the ashes then it's possible I would have made more effort to recover and resell them to the new outfit but this rarely happens so we don't bother.

I am certain that items with serial numbers or other identification can be recovered under this cause, such as engines/gearboxes etc as long as the invoice has these numbers shown.

 

[petem]

If we had known that Fairline would have risen from the ashes then it's possible I would have made more effort to recover and resell them to the new outfit but this rarely happens so we don't bother.

Fair comment - hindsight is a wonderful thing.

At least your lovely bags have your company name on the inside so every bag that's given out is a plug for your business.

 

[crustysailor321]

Re: Fairline makes boat show comeback in Miami

I thought this was supposed to be a thread about fairline boats? There are 10 pages on the car industry, government policy and general drivvle that has nothing to do with fairline boats.

Oh you have no idea how some threads can go on mby... Just a survey on the sad manufacturing history of the UK, and yes, that does relate to how successful Fairline can be in the future.

Which brings to mind one thing: Tell me, do you have confidence now to buy a Fairline boat...or not?

 

[boatingdave]

Utter tosh. ;-) I have a Squadron (admittedly not a new one, previous generation before they went down the 'square' phase) and the build quality and handling is excellent (although design could have done with a bit more thought) . I like both Fairline and Princess boats for this. I also have friends who have Sealine boats so I'll not comment on that aspect as we each have our own opinion.

I have never understood the 'rose tinted' attitude to the Fairline Company and their boats on this forum.

Yes they are good craft built to an acceptable standard, but really were always constructed to a "competitive" price just above Sealine and only to a slightly better than Sealine finish.

IMHO they always suffered from cash flow problems, hence the deal they done with Peters and the subsequent deal with Essex Boat Yards, who were able to offer large and extensive stock orders.

IMHO this only helped for short periods as the prices they were bought at only compound the cash flow problems even more.

Most folks that have purchased a new Fairline talk of the great deals they were offered with both an excellent part exchange price on their old boat and also a large discount off the new one.

Is it only the PRICE that people judge the quality of a boat on?

I'm sure that they would not take the same approach when buying a house or car.

Now awaiting the flack but please do not go out and buy Voodoo dolls and pins, it's only my opinion and as my wife tells me that does not count for much.

 

[crustysailor321]

Utter tosh. I have a Squadron and the build quality is excellent (although design could have done with a bit more thought) and the handling is excellent (admittedly not a new one, previous generation before they went down the 'square' phase). I like both Fairline and Princess boats for this. I also have friends who have sealine boats so I'll not comment on that aspect as we each have our own opinion.

And how recent was your Squadron boat? Is it a fairly old model or a relatively new one? The current Squadron models (well...the ones that Fairline still have on offer before they went under) does not have same handling prowess as its older models.

 

[boatingdave]

Sadly thats what I meant (that was me expressing an opinion that I agree with you). 2000. Handles beautifully - a lot of the newer boats seem to have gone down the space at the expense of handling route. That may just be because I can't afford a new one though ;-).

And how recent was your Squadron boat? Is it a fairly old model or a relatively new one? The current Squadron models (well...the ones that Fairline still have on offer before they went under) does not have same handling prowess as its older models.

 

[crustysailor321]

Sadly thats what I meant (that was me expressing an opinion that I agree with you). 2000. Handles beautifully - a lot of the newer boats seem to have gone down the space at the expense of handling route. That may just be because I can't afford a new one though ;-).

All too true. Although it may have also had to do with Fairline's financial situation or just a cost-saving business move, simply to slap a flybridge on top of the targa models. I know that make senses from a business standpoint and other boat builders do this too, but the end result makes the squadron boats look top-heavy, being too tall. Now I don't know whether it really affected boat handling all that much, but at least in terms of aesthetics, it looked a bit...iffy.

 

[jrudge]

As an owner of a 2015 Squadron 65 I am afraid I would disagree with you. There are 4 other new ones in Cala Dor and I think they would probably disagree with you as well.

The boat handles well in my opinion, takes the sea well ( all magazines tell you they went out in a force 7, their drink did not spill and they just plodded along at 30 knots in total comfort .... all of which is total rot) in all normal seas and is well built. Other than a patio door groaning ( solved) has no obvious travels or creaks. I have to date done 250 hours on it from new within minimal issues, and nil issues that have stopped the boat moving.

Build quality is good as was factory support (pre them going bust) and Essex / Boats.co.uk ongoing.

I have nil complaints.