Owner wins claim against UK builder

[Portofino]

There could be other inherent loads on the hull from the engine installation for example. Once a crack has started, propagation will follow, as long as there is sufficient force available.

There will be a pic of the crack .Pearl will have one .
From 2 approaches
First -as I said earlier every man and his dog ( inc owner ) in the yard later that day -after lift out -phones .
Second -the boat presumably has been repaired before court ,so surley the various repair people would have taken photo,s ( to take back to the office ) to prepare the fix quote / tender .
I,am sure they would have wanted to know the exact length -obviously to price up the job ?

So just look at the repair schedule-

 

[Tranona]

The P bracket would have acted as a lever, like a manual tin opener, with potentially much bigger forces at the GRP than applied by the shaft. There would have been vertical forces too - didn't the lawyers argue about the relative size of these?

As a matter of interest, though, did the boat actually come to a complete stop? If - to use your figures - it had a mass of 30,000 kg and was doing 3 m/s when it hit, 40 kN would have been enough to reduce the speed to 1 m/s over a distance of 3 m, which doesn't seem an unreasonable situation.

Think you will find that the boat also grounded on the keel - observed marks on the keel and witness statement that the bow rose in the air before the boat settled back.

As I suggested earlier the flaw in the 6" argument is because that is what they concentrated on as that is the basis of the breach of contract. So they ignore all the other things that happened and could have had an effect on the amount of water ingress.

 

[Tranona]

If Peals legals team where not " crummy " quote JFM ,with the crack / water ingress argument .
then I think the claiment would have simply played "sale of goods act ". Or fit for pupose
Sucessfully arguing -
7mm is really not thick enough for this application -wheeling in a bus load of expert witnesses ( boat builders / designers ) .
Who for the defence jFM would put there name to a report / evidence -that 7 mm is ok ,the industry standard ?

So it was allways going to be a lost cause for Pearl -ending up in court defending 7mm lay up around a P bkt ? iMHO

That is not an easy approach. They would have to show that the design and construction should be capable of withstanding a grounding - and I don't think anywhere that is stated as a requirement.

So you can see why they went for the contract approach because all they had to do was show on the balance of probabilities that the failure to build to the agreed design in the contract led to the loss. Hence the focus on the crack in the bit of the boat that did not meet the contract design - ignoring anything else that might have contributed.

 

[jfm]

If Peals legals team where not " crummy " quote JFM ,with the crack / water ingress argument .
then I think the claiment would have simply played "sale of goods act ". Or fit for pupose
Sucessfully arguing -
7mm is really not thick enough for this application -wheeling in a bus load of expert witnesses ( boat builders / designers ) .
Who for the defence jFM would put there name to a report / evidence -that 7 mm is ok ,the industry standard ?

So it was allways going to be a lost cause for Pearl -ending up in court defending 7mm lay up around a P bkt ? iMHO

That is "shooting from the hip" stuff and it isn't what the law provides. I wouldn't need any report/evidence that 7mm is ok

If claimant lost under the contract claim but won under Sale of Goods Act claim, then Pearl would be liable only to pay for the hull laminate reinforcement from 7mm to 20mm, say £10k or whatever. Pearl wouldn't be liable for the damage caused by the boat owner, namely running the thing aground negligently and sinking it.

Suppose you buy an iPad and it didn't work. Sure you can take it back to Apple Store for a refund, but if you carelessly drop it and smash the screen on the way to the store, the cost of fixing the screen is deducted from your refund. S48C(3) of SOGA1979 (I think)

So, in order to get the big £400k or whatever payout, claimant needed to win under the contract point, not the SOGA point. Although the SOGA point was described as an "alternative", it wasn't really.

 

[jfm]

That is not an easy approach. They would have to show that the design and construction should be capable of withstanding a grounding - and I don't think anywhere that is stated as a requirement.
.

I don't think so Tranona. Sure, what you write is correct if Pearl wanted to pay NOTHING. But if Pearl would accept suffering the cost of building up 1 sqm of laminate from 7 to 20mm, perhaps £10k, they could just concede the SOGA point. As I said above, claimant could only substantively win this by winning the contract point. The "alternative" wasn't really an alternative; it was a red herring.

(Happy to hear a contrary view if I've lost all grasp of logic - had a busy day here and missed my flight to Antibes )

 

[Portofino]

That is "shooting from the hip" stuff and it isn't what the law provides. I wouldn't need any report/evidence that 7mm is ok

If claimant lost under the contract claim but won under Sale of Goods Act claim, then Pearl would be liable only to pay for the hull laminate reinforcement from 7mm to 20mm, say £10k or whatever. Pearl wouldn't be liable for the damage caused by the boat owner, namely running the thing aground negligently and sinking it.

Suppose you buy an iPad and it didn't work. Sure you can take it back to Apple Store for a refund, but if you carelessly drop it and smash the screen on the way to the store, the cost of fixing the screen is deducted from your refund. S48C(3) of SOGA1979 (I think)

So, in order to get the big £400k or whatever payout, claimant needed to win under the contract point, not the SOGA point. Although the SOGA point was described as an "alternative", it wasn't really.

Thx that makes sense
As you say pearls legal should have really challenged the crack to win that and lose "alterative " the SoG .
BtW the legal fees, would be higher too -more time etc For rhe pearl team .

 

[jfm]

I mean the final observed damage. I'd love to know why they though the crack got bigger afterwards, though. Was the boat dropped or badly propped when salvaged?

I get your point. Thing is, the judge decided that the extra 24inches of crack occurred after the grounding. That being the case, you have no observance of the initial damage.

Of course, we have no idea how the judge concluded the 6 inch grew to 30 inches later. If Pearl's team had argued merely that point, they'd have been in better shape!

 

[petem]

(Happy to hear a contrary view if I've lost all grasp of logic - had a busy day here and missed my flight to Antibes )

Surely that's a !

 

[jfm]

Oooh yeah it was meant to be! On flight early tomorrow; all is not lost