Marina berths contract what is included

Seastoke said:
I suppose I am due for a ban ,but only had 4 pints ,.
Click to expand...
I doubt you'll get a ban for not being able to hold your drink, and I don't think talking shite gets you a ban. So, if you feel in need of a holiday, do something memorable. Make a name for yourself. Go on, you know you want to.
 
Irish Rover said:
I doubt you'll get a ban for not being able to hold your drink, and I don't think talking shite gets you a ban. So, if you feel in need of a holiday, do something memorable. Make a name for yourself. Go on, you know you want to.
Click to expand...
Because you splurge across 3 languages, how do you expect to understand true English . You do realise Adam was from Stoke.
 
gjgm said:
Does it?
I might think they might have a liability for themselves causing damage to your boat, but I am less sure that they are going to take on liability for events that happen in their marina caused by others ( or you!). How is the boat " in their care"?
That is your own insurance concern,surely.
Click to expand...
If, in attempting to preserve your boat which was in danger or being caused serious harm, they negligently damaged it by failing to exercise the care and skill reasonably expected of a professional outfit, then it is possible that the owner could bring a claim, yes. However if they stood by and simply watched your boat sustain damage in their marina when they could have intervened, then I'm equally of the view that action would be likely. Why would someone use a marina at what is clearly often significant cost if it wasn't to have a level (commensurate with the cost) of professional care for one's boat, especially when most needed?
 
Going back to the op , the boat had not sunk really , it would be good if Ardee told us how it was recovered.
 
Bonefish Blues said:
Why would someone use a marina at what is clearly often significant cost if it wasn't to have a level (commensurate with the cost) of professional care for one's boat, especially when most needed?
Click to expand...
So that they have the convenience of walk ashore berthing and relative shelter for their boat. I don’t think just because a service seems expensive you can infer contract obligations which aren’t in the agreed terms. Once they become aware it’s sinking I can see they may have an expectation to alert the owner. It’s not clear they have any obligation beyond that. I guess if they did that the owners insurers are now talking to their insurers, but if he was alerted and failed to act himself without good reason that could be very awkward because that’s the sort of thing your own insurer is likely to consider gross negligence and void the cover!
 
Bonefish Blues said:
If, in attempting to preserve your boat which was in danger or being caused serious harm, they negligently damaged it by failing to exercise the care and skill reasonably expected of a professional outfit, then it is possible that the owner could bring a claim, yes. However if they stood by and simply watched your boat sustain damage in their marina when they could have intervened, then I'm equally of the view that action would be likely. Why would someone use a marina at what is clearly often significant cost if it wasn't to have a level (commensurate with the cost) of professional care for one's boat, especially when most needed?
Click to expand...
I am not sure if you are making reference to your own berthing contract, or expectations of what you think a contract ought to cover.
Out of interest,I did have a quick eyeball at my own contract.
They accept some liability for events ,with alot of exclusions!,though my non legal interpretation, " failure to act" does not seem defined.
Hopefully, I will not be in such a situation, but I might interpret that as a phone call to say your boat is sinking, and I would not be expecting them to take on the liability to man the pumps themselves out of some contractual obligation,unless they themselves caused the boat to sink. If it sinks because of some third party, that would not be their liability, and if it sinks because I failed to maintain it, that is my responsibility liability.
I am not convinced that they would wish to put themselves legally at a financial risk when they do not need to.
I may not be interpreting my contract correctly and your contract , if you have one, may of course differ.
Hopefully, I do not have cause to test this!
 
ylop said:
So that they have the convenience of walk ashore berthing and relative shelter for their boat. I don’t think just because a service seems expensive you can infer contract obligations which aren’t in the agreed terms. Once they become aware it’s sinking I can see they may have an expectation to alert the owner. It’s not clear they have any obligation beyond that. I guess if they did that the owners insurers are now talking to their insurers, but if he was alerted and failed to act himself without good reason that could be very awkward because that’s the sort of thing your own insurer is likely to consider gross negligence and void the cover!
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about contract law, I'm talking about Tort. The scale and cost of the operation is relevant to the reasonableness of their actions taken in an emergency situation. A marina has undertaken to do something slightly more extensive than being a car park for your boat.

I think what would happen in practice in extremis is that an insurer pays out to their client, assuming the client hasn't themselves been negligent, and if the insurer believes that the marina has failed to exercise due care, would seek recovery from the marina's liability insurers. That's not limited to the specifics of the contract, but to a view of the reasonableness of their response in a specific scenario.
 
Bonefish Blues said:
I'm not talking about contract law, I'm talking about Tort.
Click to expand...
That implies that there is an obvious Duty of Care from Marina Provider to Boat Owner to react to an impending sinking. Is there case law to support that? They then also need to have been negligent in exercising that duty. Unless someone decides to test it in court we won't know if what they did (or didn't do) was considered negligent.
Bonefish Blues said:
The scale and cost of the operation is relevant to the reasonableness of their actions taken in an emergency situation.
Click to expand...
But the cost of marina's varies widely around the UK - you might pay 9k for a south coast marina, 6k for the same boat in the Clyde or 3k in somewhere less popular. You wouldn't expect any less diligence would you? Indeed the cost varies with length - and you wouldn't expect the reasonable action to be different for a 25fter or a 50fter.
Bonefish Blues said:
A marina has undertaken to do something slightly more extensive than being a car park for your boat.
Click to expand...
Have they? Where do they make that undertaking if its not in the contract? Some marinas (not sure about MDL) offer a "Boat Care" package where they do things like check the batteries, check for water in the bilge, etc. for an extra fee, or by employing a partner business. Unless something MDL have said implies they do that in the price then I think they are effectively saying "this is a car park for boats". Their fees aren't actually that different to multistory car parks.
Bonefish Blues said:
I think what would happen in practice in extremis is that an insurer pays out to their client, assuming the client hasn't themselves been negligent,
Click to expand...
But its reported here that the client was told their boat had a problem and seemingly did nothing to solve it. One of the things they could have done was say to the marina, "I can't get to the boat right now, can your staff take whatever action is necessary (for a fee!)".
Bonefish Blues said:
and if the insurer believes that the marina has failed to exercise due care, would seek recovery from the marina's liability insurers. That's not limited to the specifics of the contract, but to a view of the reasonableness of their response in a specific scenario.
Click to expand...
Agreed but if the answer is "We became aware of the issue at 0815 and called your client at 0830 on the phone number provided to us in the berthing contract and left a voicemail. When there was no call back at 0900 we tried the number again and sent an email." then I'm not sure a court would find them liable. If he'd answered and said "thanks I'll be down as soon as I can", I don't think that would change the position.

Your marina might well do more as good customer service or to make their own life easier in the long term but that doesn't mean they have a legal obligation to do so.
 
This above is your typical argument between a real lawyer and a barrack room lawyer…but who is who 😜
 
Hello,

Kingfisher - Fire Alarm Sounding

Your fire alarm (Fire Angel?) was sounding this afternoon. We went onboard and took the battery out of the unit.

There was no evidence of smoke or fire and everything looked in good order.

Regards,

Portishead Berthing
You are receiving this email as we are required to inform you of operational matters relating to boatfolk.
 
ylop said:
That implies that there is an obvious Duty of Care from Marina Provider to Boat Owner to react to an impending sinking. Is there case law to support that? They then also need to have been negligent in exercising that duty. Unless someone decides to test it in court we won't know if what they did (or didn't do) was considered negligent.

But the cost of marina's varies widely around the UK - you might pay 9k for a south coast marina, 6k for the same boat in the Clyde or 3k in somewhere less popular. You wouldn't expect any less diligence would you? Indeed the cost varies with length - and you wouldn't expect the reasonable action to be different for a 25fter or a 50fter.

Have they? Where do they make that undertaking if its not in the contract? Some marinas (not sure about MDL) offer a "Boat Care" package where they do things like check the batteries, check for water in the bilge, etc. for an extra fee, or by employing a partner business. Unless something MDL have said implies they do that in the price then I think they are effectively saying "this is a car park for boats". Their fees aren't actually that different to multistory car parks.

But its reported here that the client was told their boat had a problem and seemingly did nothing to solve it. One of the things they could have done was say to the marina, "I can't get to the boat right now, can your staff take whatever action is necessary (for a fee!)".

Agreed but if the answer is "We became aware of the issue at 0815 and called your client at 0830 on the phone number provided to us in the berthing contract and left a voicemail. When there was no call back at 0900 we tried the number again and sent an email." then I'm not sure a court would find them liable. If he'd answered and said "thanks I'll be down as soon as I can", I don't think that would change the position.

Your marina might well do more as good customer service or to make their own life easier in the long term but that doesn't mean they have a legal obligation to do so.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Hot Property said:
Don't believe the rife speculation on this thread.
Click to expand...
Why might a boat owner ignore messages (if they received messages) from a marina informing them their boat was possibly sinking if indeed that is what was happening. Of course I would not know or speculate but like many do wonder

Why would people listen to other people who might be benefiting from such a sinking if indeed that is the situation. Of course I would not know or speculate but like many do wonder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top