How common is it to mis-sell.

[Tranona]

I bought our boat from a reputable dealer who didn't need a deposit.

Their ad appeared on Yachtworld on the Saturday, I spoke to them the same day about the history. Drove 600 miles to see the boat on Monday morning and made an offer there and then.

They specifically didn't want a deposit and kindly waited two weeks for the first available surveyors appointment I could get. No money changed hands until the survey was done and the purchase went ahead.

Ancasta in this case is NOT a dealer, but a broker acting on behalf of the seller. The contract is with the seller and it is quite normal to ask for a deposit as a sign of good faith and to ensure that any costs related to the sale are covered. The deposit is held in a secure client account.

I have done the same as you. Viewed the boat, met the owner in the broker's office to clarify certain points, Made an offer (no survey), no deposit, no formal contract. Just an exchange of emails confirming what was agreed and paid 2 days later.

However, signing a contract and paying a deposit ensures that the boat will be yours provided the conditions of the contract are met, primarily that the seller has title and the boat is confirmed as described by your survey.

 

[Sneaky Pete]

Sorry but your not being fair about some of this and splitting hairs.

the engine. the advert

YANMAR 3YM30 (29hp) DIESEL ENGINE
Cruising speed 6 knots approx.
Maximum speed 7 knots approx.
Engine hours run to 1695 as of January 2024
Last serviced 2023

That is what the advert says. there is no ref to just serviced unless you are saying the add has been changed. youve not said that yet. did you expect a completely serviced engine with no hours since service with not an ounce of rust on it with nearly 1700 hrs. it looks tidy and well kept.

Im glad im not Ancaster !! or let me put it another way, they might think your damaging their reputation here and it might come back to bite you.

Steveeasy

Don't tell me of my pre conceived ideas about the boat. I knew the hours and as I previously stated it was being sold as per advert as recently serviced 2023, now that could have been January or December but I've worked on many boat engines to know the difference between recently serviced and not serviced and a bit neglected. Yanmar engines are I believe great 1700 hrs is fair for a 2009 boat I've seen them sniffing 5000 hrs. If you believe it to be tidy and well kept based on a couple of pictures then that is your opinion your entitled to it. I seen it close up and so has the surveyor, I can assure you it's not tidy and well kept. I believe Ancasta damaged their own reputation the day they wrote a marketing description for that boat.

 

[steveeasy]

Don't tell me of my pre conceived ideas about the boat. I knew the hours and as I previously stated it was being sold as per advert as recently serviced 2023, now that could have been January or December but I've worked on many boat engines to know the difference between recently serviced and not serviced and a bit neglected. Yanmar engines are I believe great 1700 hrs is fair for a 2009 boat I've seen them sniffing 5000 hrs. If you believe it to be tidy and well kept based on a couple of pictures then that is your opinion your entitled to it. I seen it close up and so has the surveyor, I can assure you it's not tidy and well kept. I believe Ancasta damaged their own reputation the day they wrote a marketing description for that boat.

Ouch.
id thought the matter had been covered and gone to bed for your sanity and in the interests of Ancaster. clearly your still stewing over it. It must be disappointing when you find a boat and find problems. id be disapointed as would others be.
However and I should know better but.
Post one of your thread said the following. I recently had a boat surveyed in Port Solent a 2010 Beneteau 37. The broker described the boat as “in great condition” and “engine recently serviced”
The second sentence of yours stated the following the engine wasn’t serviced.

You believe the broker mislead you over this matter. That is what you have said in the thread.

The Advert actually said the following.
Engine serviced in 2023.

All I have done is read your comments and that of the advert. you were not told the engine was recently serviced. therefore you were not mislead. It seams you have changed or twisted the contents of what you have read.

I've worked on many boat engines to know the difference between recently serviced and not serviced and a bit neglected

im sure you do, but that is not how the engine was advertised. It clearly stated the following Engine serviced in 2023.
nothing misleading in that statement unless it was not serviced in 2023, You would have seen the documentation. do you have any evidence it was not serviced in 2023. If so say so. if not, then you have not been mislead.

If you were unhappy with the boat you did the right thing. its not my business. id not buy a boat I thought had significant defects either.
Best wishes
steveeasy

 

[Tranona]

Don't tell me of my pre conceived ideas about the boat. I knew the hours and as I previously stated it was being sold as per advert as recently serviced 2023, now that could have been January or December but I've worked on many boat engines to know the difference between recently serviced and not serviced and a bit neglected. Yanmar engines are I believe great 1700 hrs is fair for a 2009 boat I've seen them sniffing 5000 hrs. If you believe it to be tidy and well kept based on a couple of pictures then that is your opinion your entitled to it. I seen it close up and so has the surveyor, I can assure you it's not tidy and well kept. I believe Ancasta damaged their own reputation the day they wrote a marketing description for that boat.

Every time you post a new bit of information I wonder what your beef really is. A "serviced" engine does not mean that the engine is "tidy" - it means what it says, a service has been carried out - oil and filters etc changed in accordance with the schedule. Typically this is done once a year and done in 2023 is recently serviced. It is a 14 year old boat and it is just unrealistic to expect that the engine is visually tidy - some boats are - but it is not a deal breaker. There is nothing in the ad that claims it is "tidy and well kept", only that it has been serviced. Likewise your seeming obsession with the "date" of the boat. Why are you getting worked up about this when it has been correctly described as a 2010 boat because that is what defines the specification to which it was built. It is irrelevant in 2024 whether it was built at the end of 2009 or in calendar year 2010. The date for a boat can be spread over a number of weeks months or years depending on how you want to define it. The HIN gives you the date the hull was started and the model year that describes it. The actual completion date could be weeks later, the boat may sit in the yard, or in the dealer's yard for weeks or months before it is launched. All irrelevant 14 years later. The boat is what it is and you offer on it based on what you see when you view the boat. Untidy engine bay is visible, HIN is visible. Previous BoS says when it was sold to the first owner. What more do you want to know?

I fail to see how Ancasta can have damaged their reputation with the description. The ad (as others have pointed out) seems to reflect the boat as it stands - nothing you have said suggests that it is wildly out and the two minor points of clarifying the service history and the date sequence could have been easily done when you viewed the boat before making an offer. The unsatisfactory repair that your surveyor claims to have found is of course another matter because you simply don't explain what actually happened other than saying it emerged late in the day of the survey. This suggests it was not obvious from a visual inspection, so why do you think Ancasta have misrepresented the boat? It seems to me from what you say that the seller disputes your reasons for rejecting the boat, but how can any of us know if you don't explain what actually happened?

The title of your thread is misleading. There is no evidence of "mis selling". The boat from what you say was as described in all material respects. Just using a question "how common is this" is provocative as if you have found something new when everything about your experience suggests that it is not the case. This does not mean that there are not genuine cases where boats are misrepresented by both private sellers and brokers - plenty of examples. From what you say, this is not one of them. Apart from the "repair" there is nothing you have said about the boat that would be a valid reason for rejection, or even a further reduction in price after your offer, simply because they would have been obvious on viewing the boat and inspecting the paperwork before making an offer.

 

[steveeasy]

I get the OPs beef. He assumed she was sitting in great condition and it turned out apparently not so. bloody frustrating for him. wed all be disappointed. Perhaps boats should have an insurance cat ab or c, so buyers know about damage.
Really hope you find something else though.

Steveeasy

 

[superheat6k]

Some months ago I posted about our experience of these contracts and said that we insisted our deposit would be paid subject to survey and sea trial at our absolute discretion. We could reject it for any reason. That's what we did and that's what I would insist on the next time.

When I am buying I always insist a clause similar to the above be added. Some brokers will tell you their contract cannot be changed, which is nonsense. Any contract can be changed by mutual agreement between the contracting parties.

As buyer you are the one holding the cash, and thus the one in the premium position within the transaction. Of course if there is a queue of would be buyers the purchasing dynamics might change, but I for one would never ever get into a dutch auction situation when buying a boat.

Several times I have walked away from potential purchases due to other buyers getting there first, or on one occasion indeed after me. Invariably at some point later a phone call or email arrives asking if I am still interested ! For the former whenever this has happened I have already bought another boat, for the latter situation I never ever twice deal with anyone who reneges on a agreed deal, even if a written contract has not been set up and signed, although in the case of the latter I did respond with an offer around 80% that previously made, although I would never have continued with the transaction, so at that point it was simply a wind up to waste the seller and his broker's time.

The indignation exhibited that I am not honouring my prior offer (before being reneged upon) is simply unbelievable !

 

[oldgit]

I have done the same as you. Viewed the boat, met the owner in the broker's office to clarify certain points, Made an offer (no survey), no deposit, no formal contract. Just an exchange of emails confirming what was agreed and paid 2 days later.

Bought my last boat in exactly the same way.
The broker Anacasta gave an excellent service even though did not follow the normal practice.
It took two days simply because my bank had a rule regards maximum amounts able to be transferred.
The money went to brokers client account and the seller only received his money after Anacasta had settled certain other outstanding monies due on the boat.

 

[Sneaky Pete]

Every time you post a new bit of information I wonder what your beef really is. A "serviced" engine does not mean that the engine is "tidy" - it means what it says, a service has been carried out - oil and filters etc changed in accordance with the schedule. Typically this is done once a year and done in 2023 is recently serviced. It is a 14 year old boat and it is just unrealistic to expect that the engine is visually tidy - some boats are - but it is not a deal breaker. There is nothing in the ad that claims it is "tidy and well kept", only that it has been serviced. Likewise your seeming obsession with the "date" of the boat. Why are you getting worked up about this when it has been correctly described as a 2010 boat because that is what defines the specification to which it was built. It is irrelevant in 2024 whether it was built at the end of 2009 or in calendar year 2010. The date for a boat can be spread over a number of weeks months or years depending on how you want to define it. The HIN gives you the date the hull was started and the model year that describes it. The actual completion date could be weeks later, the boat may sit in the yard, or in the dealer's yard for weeks or months before it is launched. All irrelevant 14 years later. The boat is what it is and you offer on it based on what you see when you view the boat. Untidy engine bay is visible, HIN is visible. Previous BoS says when it was sold to the first owner. What more do you want to know?

I fail to see how Ancasta can have damaged their reputation with the description. The ad (as others have pointed out) seems to reflect the boat as it stands - nothing you have said suggests that it is wildly out and the two minor points of clarifying the service history and the date sequence could have been easily done when you viewed the boat before making an offer. The unsatisfactory repair that your surveyor claims to have found is of course another matter because you simply don't explain what actually happened other than saying it emerged late in the day of the survey. This suggests it was not obvious from a visual inspection, so why do you think Ancasta have misrepresented the boat? It seems to me from what you say that the seller disputes your reasons for rejecting the boat, but how can any of us know if you don't explain what actually happened?

The title of your thread is misleading. There is no evidence of "mis selling". The boat from what you say was as described in all material respects. Just using a question "how common is this" is provocative as if you have found something new when everything about your experience suggests that it is not the case. This does not mean that there are not genuine cases where boats are misrepresented by both private sellers and brokers - plenty of examples. From what you say, this is not one of them. Apart from the "repair" there is nothing you have said about the boat that would be a valid reason for rejection, or even a further reduction in price after your offer, simply because they would have been obvious on viewing the boat and inspecting the paperwork before making an offer.

To clarify the damage. The boat was de-masted after striking something overhead, the result was that there was about 3 meters of serious damage along the right side deck, it was holed. There was also a large hole to the left of the mast base. In the surveyors opinion they were not good repairs, in the previous structural survey it too mentions a poor repair, it looked like the deck had been seam welded around the damaged area together with a poor colour match. Where the rigging, shrouds, passed through this to the chain plates it had been badly sealed as there was a great deal of moisture on the inside. The HIN, right side, had been covered over with another DIY repair job as had the left side transom with a DIY job, the icing on the cake was the wood screw sticking through the coach roof it was holding the roof lining on below.
When the gear box filler cap has been cross threaded it’s usually a very good idea to replace it not keep using it.
Although the damage was visible it wasn’t until late in the day that the owner declared what exactly happened and then produced the structural survey done by Sea Ventures.
The contract does ask for a declaration by the owner this was blank so nothing to declare here. This declaration probably exonerates the broker from any kind of responsibilities “the teflon broker” get out of jail free, however they should still be able to make an informed decision as to the general condition of the boat and they did it was “in great condition”.
I was very keen to buy this I spent a great deal of time, effort and money on this only to find out about historical damage and that it wasn’t in “great condition” but it was in poor condition because there was a great deal more wrong with it which is in the survey report. So all in all disappointed but we move on.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

To clarify the damage. The boat was de-masted after striking something overhead, the result was that there was about 3 meters of serious damage along the right side deck, it was holed. There was also a large hole to the left of the mast base. In the surveyors opinion they were not good repairs, in the previous structural survey it too mentions a poor repair, it looked like the deck had been seam welded around the damaged area together with a poor colour match. Where the rigging, shrouds, passed through this to the chain plates it had been badly sealed as there was a great deal of moisture on the inside. The HIN, right side, had been covered over with another DIY repair job as had the left side transom with a DIY job, the icing on the cake was the wood screw sticking through the coach roof it was holding the roof lining on below.
When the gear box filler cap has been cross threaded it’s usually a very good idea to replace it not keep using it.
Although the damage was visible it wasn’t until late in the day that the owner declared what exactly happened and then produced the structural survey done by Sea Ventures.
The contract does ask for a declaration by the owner this was blank so nothing to declare here. This declaration probably exonerates the broker from any kind of responsibilities “the teflon broker” get out of jail free, however they should still be able to make an informed decision as to the general condition of the boat and they did it was “in great condition”.
I was very keen to buy this I spent a great deal of time, effort and money on this only to find out about historical damage and that it wasn’t in “great condition” but it was in poor condition because there was a great deal more wrong with it which is in the survey report. So all in all disappointed but we move on.

If you consider that the owner failed to make an honest declaration of the condition of the boat as his contract with the broker implies then you have the option to recoup your expenses by suing him in the small claims court. You need to be absolutely sure of your grounds and a decent legal opinion on the contract requirements would be a good place to start.

 

[steveeasy]

Well there are some questions .

This one first. The contract does ask for a declaration by the owner this was blank so nothing to declare here. I dont know what the Declaration asks for ?. Left blank well hard to comment without reading that part.

I get why your frustrated as the add was specific. sitting in great condition. If the damage is as you say then its not sitting in great condition.

Now need to be careful here. You say its been damaged and been poorly repaired. you have a professional survey saying so. is that correct ?. you have another previous survey so so. is that correct.? So lets assume two professional surveyors have deamed the repairs as poor.

Then why is it still advertised today as sitting in great condition.. You can defend a broker on the basis how would they know there was a fault at time of listing, but now that same defense is weak.

So lets just say hypothetically a broker is aware of faults but continues to market and sell an item as sitting in great condition that they have been made aware is poorly repaired by two professional surveyors. Now it gets serious .

I can t see why an expensive boat though was poorly repaired. where was it repaired. was it an insurance repair. if it was and two surveyors have deemed it poorly repaired it should be redone by the company who repaired it.

 

[Cathy*]

To clarify the damage. The boat was de-masted after striking something overhead, the result was that there was about 3 meters of serious damage along the right side deck, it was holed. There was also a large hole to the left of the mast base. In the surveyors opinion they were not good repairs, in the previous structural survey it too mentions a poor repair, it looked like the deck had been seam welded around the damaged area together with a poor colour match. Where the rigging, shrouds, passed through this to the chain plates it had been badly sealed as there was a great deal of moisture on the inside. The HIN, right side, had been covered over with another DIY repair job as had the left side transom with a DIY job, the icing on the cake was the wood screw sticking through the coach roof it was holding the roof lining on below.
When the gear box filler cap has been cross threaded it’s usually a very good idea to replace it not keep using it.
Although the damage was visible it wasn’t until late in the day that the owner declared what exactly happened and then produced the structural survey done by Sea Ventures.
The contract does ask for a declaration by the owner this was blank so nothing to declare here. This declaration probably exonerates the broker from any kind of responsibilities “the teflon broker” get out of jail free, however they should still be able to make an informed decision as to the general condition of the boat and they did it was “in great condition”.
I was very keen to buy this I spent a great deal of time, effort and money on this only to find out about historical damage and that it wasn’t in “great condition” but it was in poor condition because there was a great deal more wrong with it which is in the survey report. So all in all disappointed but we move on.

If this is the boat many of us have now searched for, then the owner and the broker are now aware of the previous damage, the advert doesn't appear to have changed. When we sold our last boat we were told by the broker that if any problems were found during survey then they would be obliged to tell any other prospective buyers.

 

[steveeasy]

If this is the boat many of us have now searched for, then the owner and the broker are now aware of the previous damage, the advert doesn't appear to have changed. When we sold our last boat we were told by the broker that if any problems were found during survey then they would be obliged to tell any other prospective buyers.

But with respect to the OP we dont KNOW anything. its just hearsay. there is a business involved here. an asset and an owner and a repair company all involved or getting tangled up. Dam surveyors they do what we dont like doing, looking for problems. I do wonder !!.

Steveeasy

 

[Sneaky Pete]

Well there are some questions .

This one first. The contract does ask for a declaration by the owner this was blank so nothing to declare here. I dont know what the Declaration asks for ?. Left blank well hard to comment without reading that part.

I get why your frustrated as the add was specific. sitting in great condition. If the damage is as you say then its not sitting in great condition.

Now need to be careful here. You say its been damaged and been poorly repaired. you have a professional survey saying so. is that correct ?. you have another previous survey so so. is that correct.? So lets assume two professional surveyors have deamed the repairs as poor.

Then why is it still advertised today as sitting in great condition.. You can defend a broker on the basis how would they know there was a fault at time of listing, but now that same defense is weak.

So lets just say hypothetically a broker is aware of faults but continues to market and sell an item as sitting in great condition that they have been made aware is poorly repaired by two professional surveyors. Now it gets serious .

I can t see why an expensive boat though was poorly repaired. where was it repaired. was it an insurance repair. if it was and two surveyors have deemed it poorly repaired it should be redone by the company who repaired it.

It's probably late in the day to go back to the insurance company or the original repair yard however I cannot understand how or why the owner at the time accepted the repair, was it uninsured and owner paid for this? It may have been the repair yard were well out of their depth in their ability to repair damage of this type. Yards like Desty marine do this and much worse and bring them back to perfect. You make a very valid point in that the broker is now aware of the general condition of the boat but still markets it as "great condition" and for the same money which tends to support my comments regarding brokers.

 

[Sneaky Pete]

If this is the boat many of us have now searched for, then the owner and the broker are now aware of the previous damage, the advert doesn't appear to have changed. When we sold our last boat we were told by the broker that if any problems were found during survey then they would be obliged to tell any other prospective buyers.

Yes I agree the advert should reflect this, so what does this say about this well respect brokerage named Ancasta.
These are big money items for some people, and sweetie money for others, where the process should be clear, upfront and transparent not a guessing game of deceit. Hopefully if there is another conditional sale agreement then it's flagged up this time.

 

[ylop]

Yes I agree the advert should reflect this, so what does this say about this well respect brokerage named Ancasta.
These are big money items for some people, and sweetie money for others, where the process should be clear, upfront and transparent not a guessing game of deceit. Hopefully if there is another conditional sale agreement then it's flagged up this time.

obligation to tell prospective buyers and include in the advert are not the same thing; if someone else calls Ancasta and discusses the boat and still gets the "everything is great" message that is bad; if someone asks sensible questions, suggests getting a survey and still not highlighted thats very bad.

 

[wonkywinch]

Ancasta in this case is NOT a dealer, but a broker acting on behalf of the seller. The contract is with the seller and it is quite normal to ask for a deposit as a sign of good faith and to ensure that any costs related to the sale are covered. The deposit is held in a secure client account.

I have done the same as you. Viewed the boat, met the owner in the broker's office to clarify certain points, Made an offer (no survey), no deposit, no formal contract. Just an exchange of emails confirming what was agreed and paid 2 days later.

However, signing a contract and paying a deposit ensures that the boat will be yours provided the conditions of the contract are met, primarily that the seller has title and the boat is confirmed as described by your survey.

My mistake, the boat was listed by a broker, not a dealer.

Although Ancasta will be representing their client, I'm sure Nick Griffith would rather have the buyers money than the sellers boat and so perhaps some direct contact asking for his help might work?

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-griffith-2575ab38

 

[Cathy*]

obligation to tell prospective buyers and include in the advert are not the same thing; if someone else calls Ancasta and discusses the boat and still gets the "everything is great" message that is bad; if someone asks sensible questions, suggests getting a survey and still not highlighted thats very bad.

I disagree. The advert is the first invitation to buy and to describe something as being in great condition if it requires remedial work is dishonest. It wastes everyone's time. If the boat needs work it should either be sorted out by the seller or made clear in the advert that some repairs are needed and priced accordingly.

 

[ylop]

I disagree. The advert is the first invitation to buy and to describe something as being in great condition if it requires remedial work is dishonest.

Do we actually know it NEEDS remedial work, or just that some work was previously done that's not been very well done?

Now the add currently says "under offer" so nobody is being enticed to buy it (not sure if that the OP's offer or someone else's)... and it also clearly addresses some of the issues the OP highlights (actual age/year), scruffy engine paintwork, date of engine service etc. Were they updated or did the OP not notice them before hand.

It wastes everyone's time.

I 100% agree - and I did say a page or two ago that a good broker uses honest adverts and photos because its their own time they waste when sales don't materialise.

If the boat needs work it should either be sorted out by the seller or made clear in the advert that some repairs are needed

Has any used boat ever not "needed" something done - not necessarily urgent, important, expensive but there's always something more that could be done. People don't usually buy boats from adverts without seeing them in person, or talking to the seller/broker for more information. Would I be annoyed if I flew down from Scotland to view a boat that didn't live up to its description - absolutely - but I'd always ask questions, seek extra pictures and ensure the seller knew I was travelling to make sure it was less likely to be a wasted trip.

and priced accordingly.

Do we know it wasn't? Its not cheap - but without the benefit of seeing the defects in person and the surveyors report it probably is hard to say. there's zero incentive for Ancasta to overprice it for hidden defects - they want to give other sellers the impression they sell quickly for good money.

 

[ghostlymoron2]

I've used a broker twice, buying and selling the same boat. In both very satisfied, honest and efficient. You have to remember that it's the vendor paying so his allegiance with him although he's obliged to tell the truth.

 

[Tranona]

To clarify the damage. The boat was de-masted after striking something overhead, the result was that there was about 3 meters of serious damage along the right side deck, it was holed. There was also a large hole to the left of the mast base. In the surveyors opinion they were not good repairs, in the previous structural survey it too mentions a poor repair, it looked like the deck had been seam welded around the damaged area together with a poor colour match. Where the rigging, shrouds, passed through this to the chain plates it had been badly sealed as there was a great deal of moisture on the inside. The HIN, right side, had been covered over with another DIY repair job as had the left side transom with a DIY job, the icing on the cake was the wood screw sticking through the coach roof it was holding the roof lining on below.
When the gear box filler cap has been cross threaded it’s usually a very good idea to replace it not keep using it.
Although the damage was visible it wasn’t until late in the day that the owner declared what exactly happened and then produced the structural survey done by Sea Ventures.
The contract does ask for a declaration by the owner this was blank so nothing to declare here. This declaration probably exonerates the broker from any kind of responsibilities “the teflon broker” get out of jail free, however they should still be able to make an informed decision as to the general condition of the boat and they did it was “in great condition”.
I was very keen to buy this I spent a great deal of time, effort and money on this only to find out about historical damage and that it wasn’t in “great condition” but it was in poor condition because there was a great deal more wrong with it which is in the survey report. So all in all disappointed but we move on.

Thanks for the additional information. Based on what you say, I am even more surprised that you choose to accuse the broker of dishonesty in the way the boat was described and raise the issue of "mis selling". It seems now (correct me if I am wrong) they were not aware of the survey report following the damage with its comment on "poor repair" when placing the boat on the market. Presumably you carried out your due diligence, inspected the boat and accompanying paperwork thoroughly, asked questions and satisfied yourself you knew enough about the boat to sign a contract to buy it at a price that was acceptable. You are after all by your own admission an experienced boat owner.

You now say that the repair (although visible) only really came to light in the survey and your sight of an earlier survey carried out (some years ago?) post the repair. You also say now that there are more things wrong with the boat, but only give a cross threaded filler plug as an example. What else did your surveyor find that justified rejecting the boat? What is meant by "poor repair"? cosmetic? structural? safety related? Presumably the boat has been used successfully for some time without any ill effects.

I really cannot see what the broker has done wrong. He is not responsible for the condition of the boat, he did not know about the damage. How do you think he can do anything more about assessing its condition than you could when you carried out you due diligence? They have no "jail" to get out of. They are doing their job - describing the boat as best they can given the information available to them and making it available for you to view and determine if it is worth you making an offer. As far as I can see there is nothing in their description that is not a fair representation of the boat.

I can understand you disappointment on finding all is not what it seemed - but would guess the broker was equally surprised. The nature of buying somebody else's private property means the onus is on you to determine if you want to proceed and it is clear that you should not place reliance on the broker's description (or your interpretation of it - what does "great condition mean exactly?) and you are strongly recommended to engage a surveyor as you did because you have no recourse to the broker, I would imagine threatening to take the broker to court did not help resolve the dispute between you and the seller.

Not sure you have moved on. It is presumably some weeks since these events occurred and yet you start 2 threads, one explicitly accusing the broker of behaving improperly and the other implying that "mis selling" is common. From what you have revealed about the events it sounds more like a lesson of what can go wrong even when everything about the buying process goes according to the book, things can still go wrong at the survey stage when hidden defects are discovered. Indeed it is an endorsement of the need to have a surveyor to look after your interests.

It is not dissimilar from my recent experience I mentioned earlier. I found boat that was close to my ideal, a boat type I know well. met with the owner (of 20 years) went through the history in his ownership, inspected all that was possible while it was afloat and saw enough to put in an offer. After discussions agreed that the contract had a clause allowing me to withdraw if there were any structural issues. The seller was confident there were none. The survey identified 3 significant issues and 2 relatively minor. The seller offered to pay for the repairs, but I elected to exercise my option under that clause and withdraw. Disappointed but no hard feelings and my deposit returned minus expenses within a week.