Liability for sail repair after Bareboat Charter

[Vega1447]

Recently returned from a bareboat charter - yacht was in poor condition and departure was delayed as mainsail was being repaired by sailmakers. Sure enough mainsail parted at outhaul cringle in a gust. Charter firm want me to pay for sail repair.

I didn't keep a copy of charter terms. So leaving aside the legalities;

Is the company being unreasonable?

Should/must I pay?

 

[phatcat1]

I would say the Charter company are being unreasonable, especially if it parted where the repair was.
I suppose it depends on conditions at the time and whether you were reefed!
Some agreements and insurance will hold you liable if you had more sail up than conditions would safely allow, therefore you would be negligent.

They are also being unreasonable if you were delayed in your start date and didn't compensate you!

It sounds like the boat was a bit tired and so was the sail! If you have an issue with the standard of he boat and feel it was unsafe or poorly maintained you would have a strong case as charter boats must be coded and inspected yearly.

Was this abroad or in UK and did the sail part where the repair was?

 

[Evadne]

Insurance generally doesn't cover the cost of sails damaged by the wind when being used, so presumably they use this as a means of covering their costs. I don't think they're being reasonable, 'cos if the sail blew out in normal use you could argue it's not fit for its purpose, but if they've written it into the contract I fear you will have to pay up or fight them.

 

[Norman_E]

I presume this ruined your trip. You are bound by the charter terms, which the charter firm wrote for their own benefit. You may be liable, but it might be worth counterclaiming in respect of the ruined trip due to the poor condition of the sail. It must have been in pretty poor shape to part at the outhaul cringle, where there is usually a lot of reinforcement, so I think they are being unreasonable. If they insist on you paying, then name and shame them, especially if this was not the only item in poor condition.

 

[Peppermint]

Re: A charter company of any quality

wouldn't bother you over this. Are they a UK company. (if so could yo PM me there name) unless you want to name and shame here. Were they a member of any organization? Very often charter associations keep members to standard T & C's and you can find them on the web. It sounds like they didn't value your custom very much.

 

[jimi]

I'd tell them to get stuffed and you want some money back cos the charter was not up to spec and in breach of the Trade descriptions act

 

[abraxus]

My reaction would be the same as Jimi's. Tell 'em to f off.

They're possibly trying it on in which case they'll probably let it go if you refuse to pay up. If not they'll have to take legal action and if things were as you say I can't see a court finding against you.

Cheeky buggers!

 

[phatcat1]

If they are UK based, could you PM me if you do not want to make it public. I and my family do a lot of UK charter and would be interested in giving them a wide berth!!

 

[graham]

If the sail was in good order and you abused it fair enough but it sounds as if the sail was knackered and not up to normal use.

If anyone owes anyone its them owing you for a spoilt charter

dont name and shame at this stage but tell them you have posted here and will if they dont behave.

 

[Sailfree]

The hassle factor may be a reflection on the price charged against the competitors. I charter with one of the better companies and they insist on a high standard of equipment but also charge more than some of the bargain basement charter companies. They also ask owners to provide best advice on sailing tips including when to reef.

If you chartered a boat from the "Tired boat charter company" and only paid say 50% of the market price the boat should still be safe and seaworthy. In the case you describe I think they would be hard pressed to claim for the sail repair as on one charter you cannot be expected to pay for the previous few years wear and tear.

As a structural engineer I am always concerned when even a new boat is straining against a F7 upwards. The vibrations on the rig when a sail vibrates can cause fatigue and the shock loading in gusts can be very great. Was that new shroud swagged on properly?

Last year I had a sizable insurance claim for sail and rig damage when the boat got knocked down, it was allowed once the charterer demonstrated he undertook the journey to France with only a F5 forcast yet it developed into a F8-9.

 

[Peppermint]

Re: They most likely have his security deposit.

which can be a hefty sum.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
So leaving aside the legalities;

Is the company being unreasonable?

Should/must I pay?

[/ QUOTE ]

The legalities are that (unless the contract says something else) you are not liable for wear and tear on the boat. The fact that the sail was repaired is good evidence that the sail wasn't in excellent condition. You might be liable if they could prove that you did something stupid which destroyed the sail.

It would be unusual if the contract says something different from the above. If it does try to make you liable for wear and tear in some form then it's possible such a clause might be invalid anyway under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

On the other hand, you may have a claim against THEM for your delayed holiday.

 

[abraxus]

Re: They most likely have his security deposit.

Fair point Peppermint, didn't think of that.

In which case he'd have to be pro-active it about. Assuming it was a credit card deposit I might well start with the card company and complain to them about funds being held/taken aginst my wishes and inappropriately in my opinion. Otherwise some sort of legal action.

As has been said, all depends on the contract and actual circumstances of damage, but just going on face value at the moment.

 

[Stemar]

Re: They most likely have his security deposit.

Pardon my higgerance, I have a little boat, so maybe it's different at the bigger end of things.

Anyway, it seems to me that if I overcook it on my boat, I heel over. In my case the keels lose their grip and I skitter off sideways, but even with a deep fin, surely the boat will just heel until the load on the sail matches the righting moment. By definition, it's self limiting. Allow a sail to flog and I could see a batten shaking out, but for the outhaul cringle to let go surely proves that the sail was totally knackered (rotten!). Why did it need repair in the first place?

I'd tell 'em to stick their claim and bung in one of your own for loss of enjoyment due to the initial delay and the loss of the main too. If they did take you to court, it's very questionable whether any condition in the contract that makes you responsible for damage in those conditions would stand up, so I reckon they wouldn't dare.