Oyster Yachts gone into administration

I can imagine that the kind of person who buys a big Oyster is going to be fairly seriously out of pocket by putting his business on hold to take a year long cruise?
But I'm not sure it's normal for people selling ships or yachts to be responsible for anything beyond the goods they sell?

I can't see these disclosures being helpful for the people with half-built boats or those trying to sell the business as a going concern.
 
pvb said:
No doubt Loozer will be along shortly to suggest it isn't factual...
Click to expand...

It seems he won't be along shortly after all. He's just sent me an insulting PM, which ended with the words "I wont be making any further comments on the thread and will not reply to any PMs. Adios." So good news in a sense.
 
I personally wouldn't get too carried away with the £7m hit, which is afterall the price of a mid-sized Knightsbridge house, a decent one in Surrey, etc. In financial terms, if the PI firm thought it could achieve a modest pre-tax increase in operating margins of 5% (c.£2m), then a conservative 8x multiple wld translate that into £8m. So nasty, annoying, but no show-stopper. Either way, shedding it would be nice.

Oyster's future, which includes the prospective profit from that portion of the current order book which remains, will now depend on whether a new buyer, or the existing PI house see a future for the brand.

The fat lady is still backstage.
 
Last edited:
pvb said:
It seems he won't be along shortly after all. He's just sent me an insulting PM, which ended with the words "I wont be making any further comments on the thread and will not reply to any PMs. Adios." So good news in a sense.
Click to expand...

Not really good news. Some people on here need to think of their attitude to people they disagree with, but may still have information or insight to offer.
 
boatboat said:
Rubbish. The vast majority of civil disputes do not end up in court. Details of civil actions can be kept private if they are settled out of court.

Risk of reputational damage is almost always a key factor in mediations, and undeniably so in this case, meaning the line between litigation and blackmail is very thin indeed.

Plucking a figure out of thin air of 2 million Euros for mental distress suggests blackmail.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no idea how civil litigation for compensation works.

And a very brave person to repeatedly accuse somebody (who clearly has good capable lawyers) of blackmail, which could be libellous.
 
pvb said:
It seems he won't be along shortly after all. He's just sent me an insulting PM, which ended with the words "I wont be making any further comments on the thread and will not reply to any PMs. Adios." So good news in a sense.
Click to expand...

Haha, I suppose for you it is pvb!! :cool:
 
AndrewfromFal said:
What an odd thing to say to clients, - he must be supremely confident of his own likeability as a brand rep. If a company such as Oyster can be embodied by one person (which I don't really believe for a moment), I'd say it's probably the guy who founded it, ran it profitably for 20-odd years, built it into a highly credible brand, and then sold it for a fortune.
Click to expand...

He didn´t say it to clients. He talked about clients..... and himself. This was just after HTP had taken over Oyster....I mean David Tydeman.....oh no, is was Oyster they took over!
I can tell some juicy stories about that man, but will refrain from doing so. It doesn´t matter now.
 
boatboat said:
Nonsense. It can easily be argued that this fulfils the legal criteria for blackmail.
1. Is it an unwarranted demand? Yes 2 million euros over and above actual losses incurred.
Click to expand...

Whilst in most cases damages for disappointment or distress are not awarded by courts, surely it's fairly well established that, where the contract is to provide pleasure (eg a holiday), the courts are prepared to award damages. I'd have thought it would be possible to argue that the purchase of the yacht for a long-anticipated world cruise might therefore qualify for damages for disappointment and distress.
 
pvb said:
Whilst in most cases damages for disappointment or distress are not awarded by courts, surely it's fairly well established that, where the contract is to provide pleasure (eg a holiday), the courts are prepared to award damages. I'd have thought it would be possible to argue that the purchase of the yacht for a long-anticipated world cruise might therefore qualify for damages for disappointment and distress.
Click to expand...

Not forgetting the mental damage to the Captain and crew. My friend has spoken with the Captain about it all....... You did want to be there and in that situation I can tell you. Horrific.
 
pvb said:
Whilst in most cases damages for disappointment or distress are not awarded by courts, surely it's fairly well established that, where the contract is to provide pleasure (eg a holiday), the courts are prepared to award damages. I'd have thought it would be possible to argue that the purchase of the yacht for a long-anticipated world cruise might therefore qualify for damages for disappointment and distress.
Click to expand...
You're perfectly correct: Jarvis v. Swan Tours, etc. As taught in about week four of Contract Law.

dunedin said:
You clearly have no idea how civil litigation for compensation works.
Click to expand...
Clearly.

dunedin said:
And a very brave person to repeatedly accuse somebody (who clearly has good capable lawyers) of blackmail, which could be libellous.
Click to expand...
No, he's either just (i) incredibly stupid and revelling in his own ignorance, or (ii) maliciously trolling us and believes that his forum anonymity shields him from a defamation action.

Either way, I'm done wrestling with this pig. boatboat, you just go on accusing Alex Ezhkov of blackmail, and thinking that the world is flat.
 
boatboat said:
Oyster are selling boats, not holidays. As you correctly say, damages for distress/disappointment only apply to contracts where the experience is part of the sale contract. eg package holidays.
Click to expand...

I think you've failed to follow my thought process; the "pleasure" aspect of the purchase could reasonably be used to gain damages.
 
boatboat said:
Oyster are selling boats, not holidays. As you correctly say, damages for distress/disappointment only apply to contracts where the experience is part of the sale contract. eg package holidays.
Click to expand...

I do not think a judge would go with your train of thoughs boatboat. This boat was specifically built for a circumnavigation, as Oyster somehow got the owner to believe an Oyster would be a better deal/boat than a Contest. This owner had a couple of Contests before. So, he finally decided on Oyster, as their marketing and sales dept promised the world. Next thing his boat is a submarine....... I am pretty sure you have a VERY strong case, as Oyster was very much part of the whole deal here. And the damages extend to the trauma the Captain and crew had to go through no doubt.
But, let´s not forget: had Oyster dealt with this whole thing reasonably and professionally, there would not be an issue and Oyster would probably still be Oyster today.
 
Last edited:
boatboat said:
Rubbish. The vast majority of civil disputes do not end up in court. Details of civil actions can be kept private if they are settled out of court.

Risk of reputational damage is almost always a key factor in mediations, and undeniably so in this case, meaning the line between litigation and blackmail is very thin indeed.

Plucking a figure out of thin air of 2 million Euros for mental distress suggests blackmail.
Click to expand...

I'll think you find it actually works the other way.

In this case the customer has certain claims on the company that sold him the yacht and he now threatens a law suit to substantiate his claims.

The company then decides to either; A) fights the claims if they know they are right; or B) settle out of court with an agreement that says we know we've done wrong but we want you to keep your mouth shut in order to protect our reputation.

Nothing whatsoever to do with black mail.

How would you feel after dropping 8M and waiting 18 months for the build, planning your life around it, family commitments, work commitments, staffing, insurance, logistics etc etc then end up with a junk boat with major structural issues that barely got to Antigua.

All the time your told to stop moaning its fine get on with it.

2M sounds a lot to us laymen but its proportional with the amounts involved.

If you spent 16k on a ford focus and you were driving down the motorway and the wheels fell off but the brakes worked and the four passengers got whiplash but you had been complaining to ford that you and other 3rd parties thought the wheels were about come off what would your claim be? Yes, your insurance company that you paid for has reimbursed the cost of the car but it hasnt paid for all the other costs you have incurred or the whiplash victims. Up until now what has ford paid for?

How happy would your insurance company be, seen as they have now footed the bill for faulty manufacturing? Do you think they would have any claims?
 
Last edited:
SO40 said:
If Oyster would have said something along the lines of "We apologise for the situation at hand and will do everything to resolve this matter" there would not have been any legal complications nor atmittance of guilt. But they at least would have apologised.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Even if insurers / lawyers are involved, they would generally support the manufacturer expressing empathy and demonstrating a strong willingness to help resolve the customers concerns (though they would not want the words "fault" or "liability" mentioned).

But interestingly, from looking at the accounts, one does wonder whether Oyster did NOT in fact have product liability insurance to cover the Polina Star incident.
The accounts are very summary, so some caveats. But the initial claim seemed to be taken as a P&L hit in 2015 - which suggests this was not (fully?) covered by any Oyster product liability insurance. And the "contingent asset" was stated to be a potential claim on their sub-contractor (and hence perhaps the sub-contractors product liability insurers), rather than any Oyster PL insurance claim.
Not entirely sure what the norm is for boat production, but certainly the primia facia evidence suggests there wasn't any, or sufficient, product liability cover, or this incident didn't meet the terms of the cover. The detail is not there in the summary accounts to determine further.
 
dunedin said:
Absolutely. Even if insurers / lawyers are involved, they would generally support the manufacturer expressing empathy and demonstrating a strong willingness to help resolve the customers concerns (though they would not want the words "fault" or "liability" mentioned).

But interestingly, from looking at the accounts, one does wonder whether Oyster did NOT in fact have product liability insurance to cover the Polina Star incident.
The accounts are very summary, so some caveats. But the initial claim seemed to be taken as a P&L hit in 2015 - which suggests this was not (fully?) covered by any Oyster product liability insurance. And the "contingent asset" was stated to be a potential claim on their sub-contractor (and hence perhaps the sub-contractors product liability insurers), rather than any Oyster PL insurance claim.
Not entirely sure what the norm is for boat production, but certainly the primia facia evidence suggests there wasn't any, or sufficient, product liability cover, or this incident didn't meet the terms of the cover. The detail is not there in the summary accounts to determine further.
Click to expand...

I don't think that most public liability insurances pay out on claims made against a company that is still trading. If you make a mess of something, you pay out of your pocket. If paying bankrupts you, then the PL insurance takes over. PL insurance is for the benefit of your customers, not you!
 
dunedin said:
Absolutely. Even if insurers / lawyers are involved, they would generally support the manufacturer expressing empathy and demonstrating a strong willingness to help resolve the customers concerns (though they would not want the words "fault" or "liability" mentioned).

But interestingly, from looking at the accounts, one does wonder whether Oyster did NOT in fact have product liability insurance to cover the Polina Star incident.
The accounts are very summary, so some caveats. But the initial claim seemed to be taken as a P&L hit in 2015 - which suggests this was not (fully?) covered by any Oyster product liability insurance. And the "contingent asset" was stated to be a potential claim on their sub-contractor (and hence perhaps the sub-contractors product liability insurers), rather than any Oyster PL insurance claim.
Not entirely sure what the norm is for boat production, but certainly the primia facia evidence suggests there wasn't any, or sufficient, product liability cover, or this incident didn't meet the terms of the cover. The detail is not there in the summary accounts to determine further.
Click to expand...

1. There is a fine line between apologising to the customer and admitting fault. I know it is a different kind of insurance, but I have just re-read this clause in my GJW yacht policy :
7. The relevant Insured Person must not without our prior written consent:
(i) admit liability;
(ii) make any offer to settle, or compromise or pay a claim by a third party which might give rise to a claim under [this] Policy.
Similarly, my motor policy says bluntly "Never admit blame or liability. ...Please tell us if any other person admits blame."
So how would one go about discussing the problem with the customer when any incautiously honest remark might just result in your own insurer taking it as an excuse not to pay up?

2. I think you may well be correct is suggesting that the level of liability cover was insufficient, more likely at the moulding sub-contractors than at Oyster.

3. The Website report by the Russians makes for fascinating reading, but is only one side of the story. Like any court trial, the jury needs to hear both sides' arguments to have any chance of coming to a fair conclusion.

Peter
 
Was Ron Humphrey design the architects for this build?
Nothing seems to have been mentioned about where they stand in all this. They are, so I understand, well versed in super yacht design but was this poor construction? Was there a failing in design? Was there any brief for the designer to oversee any part of the structural works in the same way that an architect may be involved in the construction of a building?
There has been no comment about whether the moulder actually followed the design brief. It seems to have been suggested by Oyster that a claim has been made against the moulders, but have the moulders actually done anything wrong? That has not actually be substantiated yet- or has it?
If it has then will the owners ( or their insurers) of P Star now seek redress from them direct? do they have a claim? They have incurred loss as we know.
Is there a claim against the designer pending? Should there be?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top