From disspointing to infuriating and beyond

I like JFM's pragmatic view, sounds reasonable to me.

I'm not saying this applies to whitelighter because I havent seen the boat in question or looked at the state of other similar boats in the market, but a lot of people when viewing something second hand seem to expect it in brand new condition. If Its a 15 year old boat, then you'd expect some wear and tear. Is it in comparable condition to other boats of the same type and age, is it priced comparably? If its in worse nick than other similarly priced and aged boats, then fair enough , pass on this one,

I know the scale is much different , but when selling my previous boat ( a 21 foot sea ray) I started to get annoyed with people who appeared to want a boat in brand new condition , but were only willing to pay 1/3rd of the brand new price. I sold it after a few months, but the amount of people that complained about (what I considered to be ) fair wear and tear for a 7 year old boat with >400 hours on the clock was surprising.

I suppose the buyer wants the best they can get for their money, but reality needs to kick in at some point.

Not saying any of this applies in the above situation, but just throwing a few thoughts out.
 
jfm said:
Does he disagree with me on (a) the wording of the contract or (b) the severity of the moisture thing?

If (a), then I'd say 2 things. First, I'm sticking to my story and will avoid any game of lawyering Top Trumps; second, if he advised you on the contract before you signed it then he would say that.

If (b), I'd say you need to put yourself in IT shoes. In the UK we fret terribly about osmosis and moisture, but in the western Med people could hardly care less. You see osmosis blisters in all the yards during annual lift outs, and they expect moisture in a boat that has sat in water 15 years with total hardstnading time <15 weeks. They also take the view, as do I, that unless a surveyor tells you about the moisture you will never ever know about it. There are far more important things to worry about. so put yourself in their shoes: your rejection of the boat for moisture feels to them like a guy rejecting a boat because he doesn't like the scatter cushions. No wonder the broker has paid over the deposit to the seller.

As I said, and prior to the genset and winch info, I'd say forget the moisture and just buy the boat and enjoy it. As regards the genset stuff, devil is in detail but if there has been a misrep about the genset condition (I mean, if there really has, rather than a genuine "see the world differently" thing like the moisture) then of course you should ask for a €2k reduction or whatever. I cannot see that a 5kw genset (?) is a dealbreaker when you're getting an otherwise nice Azi 42 close to where you want it for £62k. you're in danger of blowing your nose to spite your face or whatever the saying is

Just saying it as I see it, not picking a fight, but for a boat that good at £62k be careful about rejecting it!

And one more thing. Might sound like manlogic but it is actually real. This boat is only costing you £59k. That is the money you are required to pay over in order to own it. The deposit is gone, and doesn't now feature in any buying analysis. If you reject this boat, how much more than £59k will you spend to get the same machine?

And extend that further - let's assume they do successfully sue you for €10k. You have to cut a check for £7k if you don't buy this boat. but not if you do buy it. So the cost - the net cash outflow to you - of buying this boat is really £52k. There is nothing this good at that price on the market
Click to expand...

^^^^^FM, he's good^^^^^^^:cool::encouragement:
 
jfm said:
The EN part of the contract reads as a bad translation of the IT (and MM could comment much better than me).
...
the critical clause is 13, which gives you rejection right. It doesn't specify the seriousness of the defect that would allow a rejection, and that's a major flaw. Also it seems to require proof of failure by you -I'm guessing the "proven to fail" language is a bad translation because the EN sentence is garbage, and it would be good to hear from MM what the IT words say.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed the EN version is just a more or less literal translation of IT sentences - but in this respect, it actually reflects reasonably well the IT content.
I'm not saying that it's what you would expect to see in an EN contract, neither formally nor substantially - just that I can't find any meaningful language-driven differences.
Wou are also right in reading the "proven to fail" as you did.
Probably, a better translation of that sentence could be something like "...refusal to buy for substantiated reasons", but that doesn't change the fact that the extent/seriousness of these reasons is not specified.

Actually, this might work both ways, at least in an IT court: since that's not contractually defined, an independent survey report confirming that osmosis/moisture is beyond what should be expected, possibly quantifying also an estimate of the repair costs involved (which surely aren't trivial, if one should really want to make a proper osmosis treatment of the whole hull), is something that could support the rejection decision.
After all, the seller/broker can say what they please about osmosis being normal for a 15yo grp boat (though I'm afraid that jfm point about that being rather common is correct), but if as a consequence the buyer must afford an unpredicted/undisclosed major repair work, possibly worth 1/4 of the boat value if not more, no judge in his right mind could dismiss the argument.

All that said, I'm not sure I would want to bring this to the court, in your boots.
Depending on the amount of the deposit and on the actual extent of the problem, probably walking away or going ahead with the purchase might be the most sensible alternatives.
And in such evaluation, I wouldn't be too worried by their threat to sue you for non finalizing the contract, because they should as well prove that the rejection was unjustified - with the risk that the judge could think that it actually was.
My guess is that they would be more than happy to keep the deposit and call it a day, unless they get sued of course, in which case they would try to fire back as much as they can.

Anyhow, sounds like a rock/hard place situation, sorry to hear that, Jez.
If there's anything you think I could help you with, just get in touch.
 
Last edited:
Thanks MM. BTW, AIUI, what we have here is moisture but not osmosis. Porto's link in #22 above makes interesting reading. No-one has really got their arms around what "high moisture" is. Is it like a high reading is 10 molecules of water per million molecules of polyester, and a low reading is 2? Or is it 500,000 water molecules per million of polyester? Without some science around the topic it is all meaningless, yet the surveying profession has given us no science. I've never heard of a boat underperforming because of high moisture, for sure.

There is probably lots of moisture in your hull :D My brother's boat has no gelcoat below the w'line iirc, just paint. Probably has high moisture. Who cares? When did anyone ever hear about plastics being problematic because they have a little bit of moisture in them? . Except in the world of boat surveys. (I mean moisture, as distinct from osmosis, which is itself an overstated thing).

All the plumbing in my house is plastic - probably has a high moisture reading. So what, really, is high moisture in plastics all about?

Moisture is like VAT invoices. It isn't as real as people say, but it impacts boat values. But as Jez seems to be getting a keen price to begin with, that isn't a reason to walk away imho if the boat ticks all other boxes

We even know from the other thread that this boat is €6k worth of transport cost closer to where it needs to be than the next alternative = new genset or a gelcoat osmosis strip off (if you really want to waste money!)
 
Last edited:
Never expected it to be perfect.

In fact I expected osmosis in the hull below the waterline abd there is actually less than I was expecting.

I have perhaps made too much of the moisture and not enough of the other issues. I shan't list them all here but I'd forgotten earlier they include a retrofit gas galley where the gas canister is just loose in the lazarette as there is no self venting gas locker as I guess originally the boat was all electric.

And no, I won't be suing anybody. If it comes to it I will except the loss of the deposit and stroll on. Though I am considering getting a second opinion given the comments on here.
 
Whitelighter said:
Never expected it to be perfect.

In fact I expected osmosis in the hull below the waterline abd there is actually less than I was expecting.

I have perhaps made too much of the moisture and not enough of the other issues. I shan't list them all here but I'd forgotten earlier they include a retrofit gas galley where the gas canister is just loose in the lazarette as there is no self venting gas locker as I guess originally the boat was all electric.

And no, I won't be suing anybody. If it comes to it I will except the loss of the deposit and stroll on. Though I am considering getting a second opinion given the comments on here.
Click to expand...
Gas canister, electric hob needs re-install? These are £100 items. Chuck the gas stuff away and fit a counter top 2 electric ring thing for this year, or eat pizza! Best second opinion is your own! Summer's coming - get out on the water in a snazi Snazi 42!
 
jfm said:
Thanks MM. BTW, AIUI, what we have here is moisture but not osmosis. Porto's link in #22 above makes interesting reading. No-one has really got their arms around what "high moisture" is. Is it like a high reading is 10 molecules of water per million molecules of polyester, and a low reading is 2? Or is it 500,000 water molecules per million of polyester? Without some science around the topic it is all meaningless, yet the surveying profession has given us no science. I've never heard of a boat underperforming because of high moisture, for sure.

There is probably lots of moisture in your hull :D My brother's boat has no gelcoat below the w'line iirc, just paint. Probably has high moisture. Who cares? When did anyone ever hear about plastics being problematic because they have a little bit of moisture in them? Except in the world of boat surveys. (I mean moisture, as distinct from osmosis, which is itself an overstated thing)

Moisture is like VAT invoices. It isn't real, but it impacts boat values. But as Jez seems to be getting a keen price to begin with, that isn't a reason to walk away imho if the boat ticks all other boxes
Click to expand...

I saw the boat in the flesh.

There is osmosis in the bottom, but not much, probably better than you would expect in a med boat of the age and it's easily fixable. Moisture 8 in the good bits and 22 in the worst bits on a tramex. And it was known about pre seatrial.

The boat was shrink wrapped so the topsides were not seen until the seatrial.

They read off the scale (30+) on the tramex up as far as about 2m back from the bow where they read 5. The non cored bits read 5. This not only proves the tramex but proves the moisture is coming from somewhere aft. I also take your point that an arbitrary number doesn't really mean much except that it definitely means that some bits are wetter than others.
There is no visible osmosis in the topsides which look great.

The things I don't know know are:
Can you seal the leak (engine air intake vents probably) and in any way dry the core over time (internal vents?)
If you can't can the moisture cause delamination or rot? If it were balsa, it would be a problem, but I don't think in can be as it is compound curves. Unless little squares of balsa? Anyone know?

re osmosis and VAT, a very good analogy. Little bit of knowledge and all that. If it is the same for moisture in a core, then it's a good thinking point for Jez. The boat had great engines and is in good shape otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Whitelighter said:
Saturated hull core above the waterline
Moisture readings were super high through about 3/4 of the length either side from WL to deck joint
Click to expand...
Did the surveyor explain why the hull core above the waterline was saturated? I know that Azi's can have high moisture readings below the waterline but above sounds v unusual. My AZ46 had relatively high moisture readings below the waterline but then it had sat in the water for pretty much every day of its 5yr life up until I bought it. Btw that was a yr2000 boat as well.

Personally and FWIW I would do this

1. I know its potentially good money after bad but at £62k or whatever this boat costs it sounds like a steal so get a 2nd surveyor in to verify that the moisture readings taken by the 1st surveyor are correct. Who knows, his moisture meter might have been shagged
2. Speak to Osmotech, tell them about the boat and ask them whether or not they would treat the boat and, if so, how much it would cost. Use that estimated cost to try to beat the seller down on his price
3. If the final agreed price of the boat + cost of treatment are less than the typical UK selling price of a yr2000 AZ42 and all other things being good, buy the boat. You've still got a bargain. Btw I assume you are bringing the boat back to the UK?
4. If the final agreed price of the boat + cost of treatment are more than the typical UK selling price of a yr2000 AZ42, walk away and kiss goodbye to your deposit

Just my tuppence worth
 
Deleted User said:
Did the surveyor explain why the hull core above the waterline was saturated? I know that Azi's can have high moisture readings below the waterline but above sounds v unusual. My AZ46 had relatively high moisture readings below the waterline but then it had sat in the water for pretty much every day of its 5yr life up until I bought it. Btw that was a yr2000 boat as well.

Personally and FWIW I would do this

1. I know its potentially good money after bad but at £62k or whatever this boat costs it sounds like a steal so get a 2nd surveyor in to verify that the moisture readings taken by the 1st surveyor are correct. Who knows, his moisture meter might have been shagged
2. Speak to Osmotech, tell them about the boat and ask them whether or not they would treat the boat and, if so, how much it would cost. Use that estimated cost to try to beat the seller down on his price
3. If the final agreed price of the boat + cost of treatment are less than the typical UK selling price of a yr2000 AZ42 and all other things being good, buy the boat. You've still got a bargain. Btw I assume you are bringing the boat back to the UK?
4. If the final agreed price of the boat + cost of treatment are more than the typical UK selling price of a yr2000 AZ42, walk away and kiss goodbye to your deposit

Just my tuppence worth
Click to expand...

A british surveyor said in advance that azis are prone to moisture around the engine air intake vents as they often don't seal them properly. So I don't think it's unusual.
So I don't think there's any doubt about the moisture being there. What seems to be unknown is what that means to the boat.
 
Last edited:
Firefly625 said:
For the price you are paying it ain't going to be perfect, but jfm's maths is the real world. Carry on regardless is my 2 pennyworth..
Click to expand...
Yup agreed too and massively impressed as usual with JFM's reasoning. That wheel's still got your name on it Jez so let me know when you want it!
 
Elessar said:
I saw the boat in the flesh.

There is osmosis in the bottom, but not much, probably better than you would expect in a med boat of the age and it's easily fixable. Moisture 8 in the good bits and 22 in the worst bits on a tramex. And it was known about pre seatrial.

The boat was shrink wrapped so the topsides were not seen until the seatrial.

They read off the scale (30+) on the tramex up as far as about 2m back from the bow where they read 5. The non cored bits read 5. This not only proves the tramex but proves the moisture is coming from somewhere aft. I also take your point that an arbitrary number doesn't really mean much except that it definitely means that some bits are wetter than others.
There is no visible osmosis in the topsides which look great.

The things I don't know know are:
Can you seal the leak (engine air intake vents probably) and in any way dry the core over time (internal vents?)
If you can't can the moisture cause delamination or rot? If it were balsa, it would be a problem, but I don't think in can be as it is compound curves. Unless little squares of balsa? Anyone know?

re osmosis and VAT, a very good analogy. Little bit of knowledge and all that. If it is the same for moisture in a core, then it's a good thinking point for Jez. The boat had great engines and is in good shape otherwise.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mark
Ref build, if it is 2000, then we are talking hand laid GRP, Divinycell core, and I don't know about vacuum bagging to bond the blind side of the Divinycell but let's hope they did. So no need to worry about rotting balsa. Assuming imperfection in the blind side bond and leaking engine vents and perhaps other fittings, and zero evidence of a sinking, then you'll have water twixt outer hull skin and the Divinycell. That can be dried out - if the water got in, it can get out, provided anything sealed up is unsealed. Meanwhile the boat is good to use. I'd buy it and remove a few patches of core on the inside where you got 30++, say 6 patches with a fein tool and a jig. If soaking wet then not good and set up some serious drying. If looks perfectly fine, then you have proven that the 30++ is high but at the same time meaningless, ie it is 30 molecules of water per tonne of polyester instead of 5 or whatever, but both numbers are basically not a lot of water

As we have both said, no-one has any clue what 30 on a Tramex is - there are no units ffs! But dig out some bits with a fein or by withdrawing some skin fittings or whatever and you'll find out for real!

As a matter of personal philosophy, in my book buying a bad boat is problem, but so is not buying a good one. It is very well established (among dodgy psychology writers and lectures at least!) that oftentimes humans apply a more intense scale to downside than to an equal amount of upside, and thus make the wrong decision. I'm egging Jez on at least to avoid that phenomenon!
 
I can see the logic of all of the above.
I also agree with you re: VAT paperwork and the over significance placed on it.
I can agree with most of your views.

But sadly when I come to sell you aren't going to buy the boat from me.
And while I'm pragmatic I am sadly not in the position where I can just write off that kind of money. I realise for a lot of you its not much more than your annual berth and maintenance costs but I'm not that fortunate.
 
Thanks Jez.

Would it be possible to fix the leak and at the same time vent the effected area to let it dry out? Presumably if the core isn't balsa then no permanent damage would have been done? Wonder what the moisture would weigh.
 
Whitelighter said:
The affected area is 3/4 of the length of the hull both sides from waterline to deck joint and in places the deck

Suggestions on how you might effectively dry that kind of area gratefully received
Click to expand...

hotvac

more info here; http://www.hotvac.com/faq/default.aspx

had a friend that went through this process with a princess 65 in Palma.. worked for him.
 
Firefly625 said:
hotvac

more info here; http://www.hotvac.com/faq/default.aspx

had a friend that went through this process with a princess 65 in Palma.. worked for him.
Click to expand...

Was that for a saturated above waterline core? Looking at the hotvac web site it seems to be used more for osmosis. But I'm guessing that the treatment for this is to drill / vent then pull or push dry air through the effected areas then re-seal. Could it actually be simpler to fix than osmosis?

Anyway, was it a UK surveyor or an IT one? If IT surely he would know if "all Azimuts are like that". Could you speak to UK surveyor and see if they can offer opinions on repair options?

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top