tico
Well-Known Member
Interesting... theres a Pearl 55 'Temptation' at our marina in West Wales..... His previous?
Owner wins claim against UK builder
- Thread starter Asm
- Start date
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Well that answers that question in which case Pearl provided the rope with which to hang themselves. I can't imagine why a manufacturer would voluntarily put that information in a sale contract. Is it normal for buyers of new boats to demand that the laminate schedule be stated in the sale contract? Jfm, do you do this with Fairline?
Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
Can I pose the question, where does Lloyds specifications come into this, or do not they come into this scenario at all ?
In my days a yacht built to Lloyds spec was checked out at various building stages to ensure compliance with said specs, and the sort of 'defence' thrown up on here, like non disclosure etc, would not be allowed.
Never mind the somewhat smart arse comments about withholding evidence from buyers, solicitors, legal teams, accident investigators so the truth can be fudged somewhat.
I would say that the judgement went straight to the heart of the matter, build for suitability f purpose.
In my days a yacht built to Lloyds spec was checked out at various building stages to ensure compliance with said specs, and the sort of 'defence' thrown up on here, like non disclosure etc, would not be allowed.
Never mind the somewhat smart arse comments about withholding evidence from buyers, solicitors, legal teams, accident investigators so the truth can be fudged somewhat.
I would say that the judgement went straight to the heart of the matter, build for suitability f purpose.
jfm
Well-Known Member
That's a very valid and relevant Q but no one can answer without knowing the contract between Pearl and the moulder. If the contract so provides the moulder might resist the claim on the footing that the £££ loss arose because Pearl screwed up the legal case rather than because of the moulding defect. That would make an interesting bit of litigation!
jfm
Well-Known Member
no it's not normal on this class of boat and I don't have it with fairline. That said, fairline know how to mould and I went to the factory often to see things. At various stages I asked them to change things and we agreed various sensible things along the way. All that is much better than a contract
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Fully agreed, but regardless of that I can't help thinking that Pearl should have spotted the problem while building the boat anyway.
It's not like the thickness was 19.5 rather than 20, you know... :ambivalence:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Wow, changes on the moulding process? Now, that's interesting.
Can't recall to have read anything about that, care to tell us more?
jfm
Well-Known Member
its quite important that legal proceedings are fair and not conducted according to off the cuff laymanish views. It's important the claimant can make whatever sensible claim he wishes, and have his day in court. In this case the claimant CHOSE to lead on the contract argument not the fit for purpose argument. It's generally seen as a fundamental freedom that he be allowed to do that, even if you think differently.
There was no photo immediately on impact. Both sides accepted the crack became 30 inches later, when plenty of photos were probably taken. But there were no photos right after the grounding, so you just have to deal with that portofino. You say categorically that the crack was 6 inches but the fact is no one knows and neither do you. The court found that it was, on a slim balance probability that is open to much criticism.
jfm
Well-Known Member
i completely agree that. Any decent boat builder should have noticed that when drilling the holes for the P brackets
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Agreed. In the end a decision to buy a particular product is not about what's included or not included in the contract but about the trust that the buyer places in the seller to deliver the product to a satisfactory quality and the trust that the buyer has in the seller to put it right when it (inevitably) goes wrong. You could say that if a boat buyer has so little confidence in the manufacturer that he insists on putting the laminate schedule in the sale contract, then he's probably buying from the wrong manufacturer
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Yes and it would also depend on which country's law applied to the contract. If the hull was moulded in Turkey, then the moulding company would probably have insisted on the contract being governed by Turkish law. Good luck to Pearl on that one. I would guess that if Pearl are still doing business with this company, they would horse trade a financial settlement rather than resort to lawyors
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the claimant's team checked another example of the same boat?
Tranona
Well-Known Member
They did not give the "rope to hang themselves". Paragraph 7 of the report explicitly states that the claim was for a breach of 1.1 of the contract, which I would imagine defines the boat that is to be supplied. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect the boat to be built as designed because it does not exist at that time. In order to be built to conform to the RCD the design must be approved, including the lamination schedule would be a prerequisite of getting approval. If the boat is not built to the design specification it is therefore a breach of the contract. This case is about determining whether that breach led to the loss the claimant suffered.
Pearls problem is that it was not able to prove that the boat would still have suffered the same damage if it had been built to the design. Their argument rests on their belief that the forces in the grounding were far higher than the claimant claimed supported by their belief that the original crack was 30" long which would have included parts of the hull that were to specification. (It is assumed, but not stated that the crack was in the thin part of the laminate).
Essentially the owner said the grounding was light, and the crack was small, although he has no real evidence to support his view as he was not sure of his speed, nor did he look into the bilge. The only evidence of the actual impact was the observations from another boat which suggested it was slow speed. Had Pearl been able to come up with evidence that the crack was 30" at the time of the grounding - photographs from a salvage diver, for example, then all the subsequent calculations based on assumptions may not have been necessary.
What this case seems to show from the way I see it, is that in the absence of hard facts you have to fall back on deductions made by "experts" based on what facts are known, and the winner is the one whose story is the most believable. In this case, a large sum was involved and the claimant (the insurer) was prepared to fund the preparation of a good story to persuade the court.
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
Even if the contract between Pearl and moulder allowed them to claim, it's only worth doing if the moulder has sufficient assets to pay. I know nothing about the moulder or the contract with Pearl, but it seems quite feasible that Pearl could own the mould and the premises could be rented, so they may have next to no assets.
Last edited:
rafiki_
Well-Known Member
OK, Iain should know
. Taiwanese are capable of moulding good hulls. The smaller hulls are definitely assembled at Goldicott, as I have been there, but not sure of the moulding.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
FE analysis is all very well, but I am mildly surprised that, in view of sums at stake, nobody seems to have done any experiments. It wouldn't have cost that much to mould the mounting recess and, say, 1m all around it in 7mm and 20mm and then hit 'em. Even doing it a few times might have been worthwhile.
jfm
Well-Known Member
All agreed as a summary Tranona, except I'd say the insurers produced a pretty flaky story rather than a good one, but won the day because Pearl's lawyers/experts were so bad that they didn't spot the gaping holes in the story. (Especially the reliance upon the 40% factor in the maths which was manifestly a mistake, the fluid flow calcs generally, and the dismissal of the crack-close-up theory with no evidence as to why it ought to be dismissed)
This definitely looks winnable by Pearl imho. Bear in mind that
isn't strictly right. It was agreed that the onus of proof (that the boat wouldn't have sunk if built correctly) lay with the insurance company.
Last edited:
jfm
Well-Known Member
That misses the point. There was no dispute that 7 and 20mm hulls would crack at forces of 7.7kn and 40.5kn respectively. The dispute here was only whether the actual grounding incident resulted in forces of >40.5kN, and no experiment you can design will tell you that.
The question as to whether or not the grounding created a force >40.5kN was decided by the court from hearsay diver evidence, the speed at which the boat went down based on the photographs, and the net of the outward flow rate of the pumps set against the inwards flow rate through a 6 inch crack. No experiment that you can design will improve on that
jfm
Well-Known Member
Wow, changes on the moulding process? Now, that's interesting.
Can't recall to have read anything about that, care to tell us more?
Sorry if I caused confusion with a brief post. I didn't mean changes to the moulding process or lay-up strength. I meant changes generally. My point was just the general one that an agreed contractual spec on something as complex as a boat only gets you so far and if you want a great product you have to get involved by walking the factory floor, and you will invariably then make various changes to the "agreed spec" in real time
Despite other shortcomings in the eye of various beholders one thing you can be sure of with Sq78 is the strength of the hull. It is substantially overbuilt with probably twice as many stringers and frames as it needs, and it doesn't have 7mm "panelling" anywhere
Last edited:
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Yes Tranona thats stating the obvious. The only document given to the Buyer confirming RCD status would have been the CE certificate and that certainly would not contain the laminate schedule so the question remains as to how the Buyer got the laminate schedule or at least the 20mm figure. Either it was stated in the contract which seems unlikely or Pearl volunteered the information in another way which as I say, was stupid. Yes then, having made that error, Pearl's only defence was to try to prove that the damage would have happened even if the laminate was correctly constructed and in this, of course, they failed.