From disspointing to infuriating and beyond

Whitelighter said:
Well of sorts. Except he will take the samples. How do I know it comes from Even that boat? He also says he won't launch the boat and run it to temp so even if he takes oil from the boat it will be cold and unmixed so heavy particles will be at the bottom?
Click to expand...

Besides this, there is plenty opportunity to manipulate results. What this might be (being very cynical here, but one very famous Italian politician is known for saying " thinking bad about something is a sin but most of the times you are right"):
1. a delay to waste more of your time and energy and wear you out
2. building a case of showing good will "see we even did tests"
3. having the opportunity to have something to oppose to your survey which at that point would be irrelevant unless you put the effort and the cost to do another one... for a boat you don't want to buy.

Again, I would refuse any further BS, demand the money back and stop any negotiation.
 
Last edited:
Whitelighter said:
Yes if they do it properly then fine.

I'm not sure it's in there interest to do that. Theyve ready demonstrated they really don't want to return the deposit so why not just take the oil from somewhere else. Or do an oil change first.
Click to expand...

Shame you did't take 3 samples originaly. One for you, one for the vendor and a control sample. Hindsight is wonderful thing
 
Whitelighter said:
Yes if they do it properly then fine.

I'm not sure it's in there interest to do that. Theyve ready demonstrated they really don't want to return the deposit so why not just take the oil from somewhere else. Or do an oil change first.
Click to expand...

It might be helpful to see it from their side. The broker probably has no idea what the engines are like. Someone turned up, asked them to list the boat, agreed a fee. The broker took a couple of photos with an iphone; wrote an advert describing it as mint.

Then you saw it, made an offer and signed.

Now you want to walk away with your money. You say the boat's a wreck. Looks much the same as last week out of the office window.

You've got some oil samples. Broker thinks these are about as good as you think his might be.

Is there a way to get someone you'd both trust to take a sample and send it off to the lab? If there is it would seem like the low-cost option if, as you seem to suggest, the broker is showing some movement towards returning the money.
 
Seems to be emphasis at least on the forum has moved toward the oil analysis being the reason why the boat is bad. I do not believe this to be the case, I thought the oil analysis was another negative item in a list. If all emphasis is placed on the oil analysis and a good analysis is presented by the broker (whether legitimate or not) then your case will fall apart.

I'm in agreement with "worstcase's" final statement above, get a lawyer to draft a response categorically refusing the boat and claiming the return of the deposit based up on the list of issues that have been identified in the condition of the boat (I would make this list as big as possible but not petty items). You'll just have to make a decision on how or if to proceed with further action each step of the way.
 
benjenbav said:
It might be helpful to see it from their side. The broker probably has no idea what the engines are like. Someone turned up, asked them to list the boat, agreed a fee. The broker took a couple of photos with an iphone; wrote an advert describing it as mint.

Then you saw it, made an offer and signed.

Now you want to walk away with your money. You say the boat's a wreck. Looks much the same as last week out of the office window.

You've got some oil samples. Broker thinks these are about as good as you think his might be.

Is there a way to get someone you'd both trust to take a sample and send it off to the lab? If there is it would seem like the low-cost option if, as you seem to suggest, the broker is showing some movement towards returning the money.
Click to expand...

Exactly BJB, we're all quick enough to assume that the seller/broker will fudge the oil sample results if he does them, but can't understand why he doubts the results provided by the buyer, which from their point of view have been provided after a failed attempt to reject the boat for moisture in the hull.

As you suggest, I think the best bet is to agree a trustworthy third party who can collect the samples , test them and provide results to both parties.
 
Whitelighter said:
He also says he won't launch the boat and run it to temp so even if he takes oil from the boat it will be cold and unmixed so heavy particles will be at the bottom?
Click to expand...

The engines can be run up with the boat out of the water and a hose pipe fed into the strainer. Not sure about gearboxes though, probably not for H&S reasons, if no other.
 
Nick_H said:
Exactly BJB, we're all quick enough to assume that the seller/broker will fudge the oil sample results if he does them, but can't understand why he doubts the results provided by the buyer, which from their point of view have been provided after a failed attempt to reject the boat for moisture in the hull.

As you suggest, I think the best bet is to agree a trustworthy third party who can collect the samples , test them and provide results to both parties.
Click to expand...

Its not a failed attempt. I still consider the wet hull grounds fro rejecting the boat. As doe the lawyer.

The engineers report and oil samples just add weight.

To address a few issues, the rejection is now three fold:

High moisture readings in the hull
Engineers report and oil samples
Mis-representation of condition (I have emails from the broker listing the equipment in which he lists the Generator, rudders and some other items as new, he was quite categorical about this, and they arent).

Also, with regard to getting a lawyer to write and demand a return of the deposit this was done initially, and has been repeated no less than twice more. I have had no direct contact with the broker since the sea trial. Everything since then has been handled by my third party.
 
Richard.C said:
I'm in agreement with "worstcase's" final statement above, get a lawyer to draft a response categorically refusing the boat and claiming the return of the deposit based up on the list of issues that have been identified in the condition of the boat (I would make this list as big as possible but not petty items). You'll just have to make a decision on how or if to proceed with further action each step of the way.
Click to expand...

Done, on multiple occasions with the last demand sent with the engineers report and oil analysis.
 
Whitelighter said:
Its not a failed attempt. I still consider the wet hull grounds fro rejecting the boat.
Click to expand...

I said "from their point of view". As a few people have mentioned, moisture readings are not a big issue in the med, so they may have seen your initial attempt to reject on this basis as just a change of mind on your part. When they rejected this, you came back with the oil analysis results, so I'm just pointing out that they may be as suspicious of your results as you would be of theirs.
 
Nick_H said:
I said "from their point of view". As a few people have mentioned, moisture readings are not a big issue in the med, so they may have seen your initial attempt to reject on this basis as just a change of mind on your part. When they rejected this, you came back with the oil analysis results, so I'm just pointing out that they may be as suspicious of your results as you would be of theirs.
Click to expand...

Ah ok I see your point.
 
Nick_H said:
As you suggest, I think the best bet is to agree a trustworthy third party who can collect the samples , test them and provide results to both parties.
Click to expand...

Who will pay for it? When?

It would have been easier was this done initially.

The reason to disregard the point of view of the seller is that the two sides are not equally affected in this situation. The "costs" should the seller end up returning the money would be zero. Loss of sale opportunities? Prove it. Prove you had buyer that were turned down because th boat was under offer. On the other hand, the buyer has so far accumulated a significant loss should the deposit not be returned to him. So the two positions are not equal and should not be treated as equal.
 
Last edited:
WorstCase said:
Who will pay for it? When?

It would have been easier was this done initially.

The reason to disregard the point of view of the seller is that the two sides are not equally affected in this situation. The "costs" should the seller end up returning the money would be zero. Loss of sale opportunities? Prove it. Prove you had buyer that were turned down because th boat was under offer. On the other hand, the buyer has so far accumulated a significant loss should the deposit not be returned to him. So the two positions are not equal and should not be treated as equal.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your logic, but anyway it was a pragmatic suggestion rather than an assessment of the two sides positions. It depends if Jez wants a battle, or just wants his money back.
 
Not read every post but from what I have, if I were to buy from somewhere like Italy, taking into account that Jez is far more experienced than me & has had problems, I would definitely be using a broker to provide services such as those offered by EBY (still don't like the new name) & trashed a while ago on this forum.
 
Nope. But boats.co.uk want 10%, so even on the azimut you are talking about £6400 plus the italian brokers fees.

I think I've been a bit unlucky but still might see my deposit back. I'm off shopping next week so it's not put me off
 
I'm no lawyer but I think I am correct in saying that if the OP failed to complete and was taken to an Italian court, failed to appear and thus had damages awarded against him, then these would be enforceable though an English Court.

I was mis-fortunate enough to become a defendant in an mega million A$ dispute between my then employer and a client arising from events dating from I worked in Australia although by the time of the dispute I had moved back to the UK. I was advised by a UK lawyer that ignoring it was not an option..
 
Just to clarify

I am not making any judgements on the rights or wrongs of this particular dispute.

I am just saying that, in general, if people think they can ignore foreign court proccedings against then because they are over here and have no assets in that jurisdiction, they could be in for a nasty shock
 
I'm sure the more legal folk can correct me if I'm wrong but clause 17 of the contract "Default by Buyer" clearly states only recourse for seller is retention of the deposit and payment for costs incurred for the sea trial. So I can't see there would be much for them to pursue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top