Here’s one for you legal types

[coliholic]

Friend of mine bought a new boat from a manufacturer 2 years ago. I better not name them just in case of legal problems. It was their demonstrator boat and is 27’ long, sort of rivery type boat but they’d fitted a 140HP Yanmar to it and were marketing it as river and estuary and "offshore" capable. So he bought it with about 40 hrs on it, direct from the builders and has used it for the last two years but only on the river, so just running it at 5kts or so.

It’s fitted with two diesel tanks with a fuel filler on each side deck.

Now where he normally moors the boat is right next to the fuel pump in his marina so till now he’s only used the port side filler ‘cos it’s a doddle to just pull his boat across the four or five metres from his mooring to the fuel dock and fill up just on that side. After all it’s only on the river, so fuel consumption is not a big deal anyway.

Couple of weeks ago he was out on his boat and noticed the fuel gauge getting a bit low so stopped at another marina to put a few gallons in the tank. Only this time he’s starboard side to their fuel pontoon so fuels up through that filler. After some 45 litres, he notices that the fuel gauge hasn’t moved at all so tells the guy on the pump to hold on a minute. There's a bit of a pong of diesel too, so he pops down in the cabin only to find the boat awash with diesel.

Seems that there is actually only one tank fitted to the boat and the starboard filler is just not connected to anything. Just a very nice chrome filler cap, clearly marked “Diesel”, (in accordance with BSS regulations of course), but not connected to anything. No blanking-off plate underneath. Nothing. Just an open pipe.

So the total contents of what he’s just pumped in, has gone straight into the bilges. Via the seats, carpet, fridge, cooker etc.

Upshot is one seriously damaged and smelly boat.

Now he’s claimed off his insurance and they’ve authorised the ripping out of all the interior and “they’re having words” with the manufacturer who at this stage seem to be claiming that a) the boat’s out of warranty, b) he should have checked this sort of thing, c) it’s not their fault anyway, d) user error etc etc.

He seems too laid back about this to my mind, and is quite happy to leave it all to the insurance company, but if it were me I think I’d be having at the very least a full and frank discussion with the builder.

So what do you lot reckon he should do?

 

[tcm]

Re: Stage 1

I note that they haven't said they won't do anything: they have (prematurely) respoded in a manner that parries a lawsuit.

In that position, I d tellem what i wanted doing, invitem to come and have a look. I wd say that it should be possible to remove the pong and a few cushions and carpets may cost far too little to spoil the NCD?

 

[jfm]

Caveat Emptor now applies

Leaving aside the morals of the case, imho he has virtually no redress against manufacturer imho. It's out of warranty, and there's no chance of the "unfit for purpose" type stuff 2 years on. So all risk is the owner's. In which case, best to talk firm but nice to manufacturer and explain that they ought to fix it despite the above, and othwerwise name and shame them. If you stick to the truthful facts, there's no need to worry about legal ramifications. If in doubt on this last point, check with Edwina Currie.

 

[byron]

Re: Stage 1

Leave it to the Insurance Company. Thats why they have a legal department.

ô¿ô
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.freeware.mcmail.com/435.htm>http://www.freeware.mcmail.com/435.htm</A>

 

[hlb]

Re: Caveat Emptor now applies

I would have thought. Fit for purpose was Ideal. Since a boat is meant to last alot longer than two years and it clearly was unfit for purpose. Still if the insurance is paying, then it's up to them to sue the Manufacturer if they want to.

<font color=red> No one can force me to come here-----------
----- I'm a Volunteer! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Haydn

 

[ChrisP]

Most obvious points, did the manufacturer ever claim the boat was fitted with 2 tanks and did they cover fuel filling in the hand over proceedure. If not no claim and leave it to the insurance company.
Shouldn't be a problem nameing and shameing providing the comments are factual. Stick to the proveable facts and there's no worries.

ChrisP ;o))

What do you mean the sea gull in front's walking !!!

 

[Dallas]

I could be wildly out here, but in my opinion if a manufacturer fits something to a boat (or car or airplane) then it's only reasonable to expect that fitting to do its job. If the manufacturers knew there was no fuel pipe under the filler cap then whats the point of fitting a filler cap - why not a blanking plate.

It may be a good idea to ask if the same thing has happened to other owners.


Dallas

 

[burgundyben]

Bit like car MOT, if its fitted its got to work.

I am with hlb and tcm Dallas and chrisp on this, leave it to the insurance co to sort out, but confer in strongest possible sense with boat builder.

I worked for westerly for a while in the 1980's, the coolbox had a drain that ran straight into the bilge, oops, spill some milk, phewee, v smelly boat. See, if a boat builder does something really stupid they shud be made to put it right, else they will continue in same vane/vain, now I see why BSS inland waterway thing says no float switches on bilge pump.....think thats right, but never been ditch crawling so not to au fait with BSS things.

For sale, 1970 Triumph Spitfire-sold, 1947 Lambretta, 1922 Great grandmother, PM for details.

 

[jfm]

Re: Stage 1

.....staffed by twonks, in the main. If you were a good lawyer, would you work for the legal dept of an insurance co?

 

[jfm]

Re: Caveat Emptor now applies

Haydn, it's established law that you cannot use the "unfit for purpose" argument 2 years after you bort something. You've probly missed the boat once 30 days have elapsed since purchase.

 

[tripleace]

dying to know who made it.

gives us a clue,

British surely not

Amercian maybe

French possibly

German couldn't be

Norfolk only on a friday

west country nope. they would leave it out completely

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk/365.html> Triple Ace Link</A>

 

[jfm]

Colholic tell all

Hear hear. Go on Col, tell us who made the boat. Preface with "I believe it was made by..." then no-one can sue you becuase that's correct, even if wrong, if you see what I mean

 

[stamfordian]

Mmmm.total balls up by builder,as others insurance should cleer up legal bunf,twin tanks not issue,two fillers to one tank,1 not piped more likely.
Sorry another case of a lot of boat been used as a canal barge(no offence meant) but why do you need all that grunt if you can only do 5 knotss

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/stamfordian>http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/stamfordian</A>

 

[coliholic]

Ooh you are awful Trying to tempt me in to telling you that I believe it might be a xxxxxx........oops it nearly slipped out without me meaning to say it.

But it's intersting innit. At SIBS I met up with the outrageous Piers and we were chatting about boats abnd stuff and he told nme to go and have a chat with one particular manufacturer who were showing a new model this year. So off I toddled and when I went on their boat I told the sales guy that Piers had sent me and also mentioned that one of my other mates had bought one of their boats a couple of years ago. "Oh" says the sales guy, "what's his name?" So I told him and he said "Oh not not him, he's just put a load of diesel in his bilge". Asked him how that had happened and he sort of clammed shut and found something really interesting to look at out of the window. Or was it his fingernails that needed examining?

So after SIB's, quick as a flash ('cos I'm a nosey bugger), got hold of my mate who told me the whole story as detailed in the first post. Well actually to be brutally honest it was his wife who told me. Anyway she said she couldn't remember the exact make of their boat but it could have been or might be something like one of those islands that the sweaties own.

Sort of off the north coast of Scotland.

Hevbrides? Orkneys? SHETLAND? Benbecula?

Anyway something like that. Only of course she's not too sure of the make so I'd hate to inadvertently name an innocent party and end up in all sorts of sh** . So I won't tell you who I think it is. OK.?

And as regards to them not being liable, well I'm sure jfm and others are much more clued up on this than me, but to my mind if a boats's got two fillers, they should be connected to something irrespective of when you use them? Surely?

And to leave it to the insurance company seems to me to be missing out on a legitimate opportunity for a damned good shout and rant. And what about his NCB? For someting that wasn't anything to do with him.

I think he's taking it too calmly. But then it's not my boat and I'm not even sure what make it is.

 

[jfm]

In defence of the law, why no redress

Colin, you say "but to my mind if a boats's got two fillers, they should be connected to something irrespective of when you use them? Surely?"

Yes, absolutely agree, but the question was a different one: has he has any legal basis for pursuing the builder? and imho he hasn't, and shouldn't.

That might sound unfair/bad law etc. But, in the law's defence, it is balanced. Manufacturers need some protection to encourage them to take the risk of running a business. If customers are allowed to claim "unfit for purpose" etc 2 years after the deal, the manufacturer never gets to a point when he's free of past liabilities. Thus the law quite deliberately imposes time limits after which the customer has missed the boat. The public policy behind these laws is to encourage people to go into business at all. People would not be so keen to be entrepreneurial if they could be sued 2 or 20 years after a cock up. So, although customer loses out in a few cases, it's a question of balance and encouraging enterprise. It's the same philosophy behind allowing people to trade as limited company - the customer can lose out if the company goes bust, but without this there wouldn't be so much enterprise in the first place, so we'd all lose out.

And the crucial point is that everyone knows the rules of the game before you start. If you deal with a limited co you know you cannot get money beyond the ability of the company (not the rich directors) to pay. Likewise if you buy (retail) a manufactured product you know you have about 30 days to reject it as unfit for purpose, and after that you just have the warranty which you can read. Or at least you should know!.

So, there's method in this madness