Whitelighter
Active member
Hi JFM,
Box cleared but also saw your email.
Box cleared but also saw your email.
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.
That's a good point P, in fact I did say that the lack of pre-agreed reasons can work also against the seller, not just in his favour. There are several other considerations though. I'm on it atm, and hope to give Jez a feedback asap.
I'm not holding my breath re welcoming an Az42 in CF while on her way to the Balearics, anyway...
Got some more news today that I think nails the coffin on this deal.
Will update later
... in bank-financed transactions that the lender's conditions for advancing the money must be things in your control or conditions precedent to completion of the contract.
Interesting JFM.
My marine lawyer disagrees with you - not saying you are wrong but I have two differing opinions from two people I respect.
There are other material defects which we have passed on and are summerized in an engineers report including significant damage to the generator and poorly maintained stern gear which. Perhaps not an issue but pre-contract discussions these items were offered as new.
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
I must disagree on this point.Not specifying any reason that could constitute a cause for rejection means ANY reason is valid
I must disagree on this point.
It's true that "Comprovato esito negativo" (of the survey) doesn't say HOW it should be "comprovato", but it does say that there must be some sort of valid reason.
That's what was poorly translated with the "not proven to fail" expression, and I previously revised as "substantiated reasons".
Whatever, I'm not saying that there isn't one - I couldn't be more far from it - but it can't be just a change of mind, as you seem to suggest.
Anyway, my understanding is that the semantic issue is now overtaken by events, and the problem only lies in what in Italy you would call the "articolo quinto", if you see what I mean...
And in this respect, I'm afraid Jez can't get much more help from this debate, ATM.![]()
Sorry but again I must (wholeheartedly!) disagree.go straight to Carabinieri. No need for arbitration, no need for lawyers. They will question the seller, that should do it.
Yes correct, what I meant is ANY negative found in the survey, especially on items that were either not mentioned or mentioned to be in a different condition.
so the way I see it is very clear cut in favor of buyer under these circumstances and I would act accordingly meaning demanding firmly the money back and then go straight to Carabinieri. No need for arbitration, no need for lawyers. They will question the seller, that should do it.
I would do it before June 26.
Sorry but again I must (wholeheartedly!) disagree.
You could and should involve the Carabinieri (=police) if there would be any kind of crime involved, i.e. if the money would have been stolen from a wallet or something.
What we have here is a deposit paid in the context of a signed contract, which in itself states that any dispute must be submitted to an arbitration court.
If you would show it to the Carabinieri pretending that they do something to recover your deposit, they would laugh - and rightly so, I'm afraid.