Reconditioned a legal term?

[Tranona]

Thanks Rotrax. I believe i shall.

You are wasting your time going that route. As I said Consumer Rights Act does not cover a private transaction. So merchantable quality and fitness for purpose don't apply. Your only chance is misrepresentation as a number of earlier posts have explained.

To do this you need to first collect your evidence of what was claimed about the engine by the vendor and the broker that convinced you their claim was valid and that your purchase decision was based on that claim. Then you need a comprehensive engineer's report to show that no work was done that could justify that claim. Your big problem is that it is now a year on and the evidence you need about the engine is its condition a year ago.

Once you have this evidence, present it to the vendor and the broker together with your claim for your loss, such as an estimate for the cost of bringing the engine up to a condition that would meet the description on which you relied. Do not mention taking legal action until you have a response. Give a time frame such as 30 days for a response. What you do then depends on the response or lack of. If the latter then start the court proceedings.

I have been successful with the Small Claims procedure. To get the court on your side you need both a well prepared case with all the evidence that you can get, and importantly be able to show that you have tried to resolve the issue through negotiation, arbitration etc and that taking it to court is a last resort.

As already suggested speak to the RYA legal department and if the broker is a member of the YDSA or BMF then contact them.

 

[Malabarista]

Do I understand that the engine did not run ? if it did how well did it start and what did it sound like and did it smoke?
If it has never started and will never start in the state it was in then I would be wanting to have a go at the seller.
Sometimes a reconditioned engine may have had the main working engine part completely reconditioned but the owner
may have been responsible for refitting the auxiliary parts back on, so these items could well be in a poor looking state.
The small claims process has worked well for me in the past.

thanks for your reply
the engine was running for the sea trial and also ran down to the Solent from Hamble marina. it then ran for approx two miles up the river Brede into it's current location. The engine seemed to be running fine apart from the gearbox issue which was sorted at Eastbourne.

 

[Malabarista]

Tranona has pretty well summed it up. You could get advice from the RYA legal department if a member. I contacted about an issue that came to light post purchase and was told that even if the vendor had known I would be unlikely to have recourse. Was also told that the brokers as agents for the seller are not obligated to tell you anything they know.

After a year I am sure you are deemed to accepted the engine anyway.

thanks Ithet.

 

[Malabarista]

There is (TTBOMK) no precise meaning of 'reconditioned' in relation to marine engines. That said, it is not always necessary to have a precise meaning for representations and it is not always necessary to prove precisely what was meant; if on any reasonably meaning the representation is false (untrue) then it is a misrepresentation. We can all agree that a 'reconditioned engine' does not mean just an oil and filter change - it means far more than that but where it stops is not clear and is probably determined by the prior condition of the engine. Perhaps it is best defined by the result rather than what has been replaced; it is an engine that has been checked to be, or has been put into, manufacturer's tolerances and all worn or used parts replaced or placed within tolerances. (I am sure this could be improved with a bit of thought).

On the account you have provided, the engine has not been reconditioned and seemingly there has been no attempt to do so.

Is it an actionable misrepresentation?
a) For myself, I am not put off by the time since purchase since there is no time limit (other than the limitation period which is irrelevant at the moment) but the sooner the better; not all misrepresentations can be discovered immediately and this is such an example. You would not break down the engine to check it had been reconditioned, you find out whether it has the hard way.
b) More important is the contract itself as you may find that you have stated in the written contract that you are not relying on any pre-contractual representations. THis may be one of those pre-contractual representations that you waived away in writing. So it would be important to know when the representation was made, who by and whether it is set out in the written particulars (often appended to the contract for purposes of inventory) and whether it appears in the written contract (unlikely)

If it is actionable, in that it is a misreprentation upon which you relied and, upon that reliance have suffered loss, then you have a case. There is no need to prove fraudulent misrepresentation (the seller may him or herself have been duped) and it is permissible to allege innocent misrepresentation. The court can award damages which ordinarily would be what it would cost to put you in the position you believed you had been placed.

You will need an expert report from your engineer (supported by photographs where possible) and you need to get in contact with the seller soon so they have the opportunity to examine the engine expertly as well (whether they wish to do so is up to them) and then you would issue the claim in the Small Claims Court as this is likely more than enough (£5k limit) and you are protected in respect of costs.

I have made it sound easy but you need to check your written contract of sale. DOn't allege matters (eg fraud) which you very likely cannot prove. On what you have said so far, I would not 'bin it yet.

Thanks for your reply Poecheng. I will check my Contract to see if there are any pre-contractual representational clauses. ( Although I must admit to a possible inability to spot one unless it is carrying a neon sign).
I will have a word with the marine engineer tomorrow to see what qualifications he holds and whether he would be happy to wave them around in a solicitors office. your advice is greatly appreciated.

 

[Malabarista]

You are wasting your time going that route. As I said Consumer Rights Act does not cover a private transaction. So merchantable quality and fitness for purpose don't apply. Your only chance is misrepresentation as a number of earlier posts have explained.

To do this you need to first collect your evidence of what was claimed about the engine by the vendor and the broker that convinced you their claim was valid and that your purchase decision was based on that claim. Then you need a comprehensive engineer's report to show that no work was done that could justify that claim. Your big problem is that it is now a year on and the evidence you need about the engine is its condition a year ago.

Once you have this evidence, present it to the vendor and the broker together with your claim for your loss, such as an estimate for the cost of bringing the engine up to a condition that would meet the description on which you relied. Do not mention taking legal action until you have a response. Give a time frame such as 30 days for a response. What you do then depends on the response or lack of. If the latter then start the court proceedings.

I have been successful with the Small Claims procedure. To get the court on your side you need both a well prepared case with all the evidence that you can get, and importantly be able to show that you have tried to resolve the issue through negotiation, arbitration etc and that taking it to court is a last resort.

As already suggested speak to the RYA legal department and if the broker is a member of the YDSA or BMF then contact them.

hi Tranona thanks again for your time. I am evidently a little hard of thinking. I had failed to see the difference between the small claims court and consumer rights act. apologies. the only evidence I have of the vendors claim is the details that were given to me by the broker. which were " Yanmar 4JH3TE (reconditioned) 2016"
I know that is a little light on content but everything else that was explained to me about the engine was verbal. I asked on this very forum for a little help with questions for owner from a first time buyer on the sea trial of which I received dozens.I diligently asked and received satisfactory (I assumed) answers. I failed to ask for receipts from the engine rebuild which is my lack of experience or the fact that my brain cell was doing a lonely cartwheel across the deck of my (maybe) new boat at the time. your advice is appreciated.

 

[Malabarista]

I'm inclined to go with Tranona's remarks, with the caveat that the Broker might bear some responsibility if he repeated the vendor's claim that the engine had been reconditioned, I really can't say on that one.
However, you say that the engine ran satisfactorily when you took ownership, but now, a year later, it is beyond economic repair. During that year a significant quantity of water entered the engine, which presumably happened sometime during your period of ownership, and also presumably is responsible for considerable deterioration of the engine's condition.


good.....er...morning Earlybird
the engine ran well ( apart from the gearbox) right up to when it was parked in a cradle. unless someone was running up and down my ladder with buckets of seawater it would be difficult to imagine how the engine became flooded whilst in my ownership. however I was provided by the lovely folk on this forum with evidence that BC had been flooded and towed in by the RNLI. I used this information along with lots of other questions compiled from my first post on this site to ask the PO specifically about water damage that was not evident. I was told that the engine had been removed and reconditioned. the clean and freshly painted engine block seemed to point to this being true as did the photos I was shown of the block actually being removed. Thanks very much for your opinion I need all the help I can get.

 

[lw395]

It sounds like the engine was functional when the OP bought it?
And now it's not...

So at least some of the problem is deterioration while it's been in the OP's care.

 

[solent clown]

likely as not, when the PO had flooding problems, he paid someone to do the work. That engineer may have just changed the oil and filters, spun the water out of the bores and put the injectors back in. Then fired it up, and given it a quick lick of "recon" paint. It is unfortunately still not uncommon to see "recons" of that nature from time to time. He may have told you about the recon in good faith, not that saying all that is much help - but you may be able to ask him on the strength of it who did the engine. Unlikely after all this time they will do anything about it, but if it is a one man band boat engineer, he may fear his rep.

 

[[70521]]

After a year of toiling on the boring bits (after work and weekends) I finally got around to the engine. Looks very lovely on the outside but after removing the air filter i noticed that there was a significant amount of rust on the turbo blades. I called in a marine engineer and together we looked around and came to the conclusion that the chances that this engine was ‘reconditioned in 2016’ ( as stated on the selling particulars) was virtually zero. So we hauled the engine out, put it on a test bench and it was thoroughly tested. Upon removing the flywheel cover my marine engineer was soaked by rusty seawater ( tasted) and as every bolt and nut he attempted to undo was either seized or very evidently undisturbed in recent years it appears that no way has it been ‘reconditioned’.
Some of you may remember that i bought the boat a little over a year ago. My question to you learned lot is …do i have any recourse against the seller after this much time?
I have been advised that the yanmar 4JH3TE engine is completely FUBARED and BER to boot. With secondhand/reconditioned and new engines costing large wedges of beer tokens i am interested in finding out if there is anything i can do apart from suck it up and start saving.
Thanks for reading
Dave

Just a tad surprised that this was the last bit of kit you looked at. Engines should always be the first.

 

[Malabarista]

It sounds like the engine was functional when the OP bought it?
And now it's not...

So at least some of the problem is deterioration while it's been in the OP's care.

Hi
thanks for your input. I completely agree with your statement however surely if the engine had been as described putting it in a cradle for a year would have done no harm. Had I known that it was full of sea water I would have made it a priority to have it stripped and cleaned. (or maybe not have bought it in the first place)

 

[solent clown]

what was the gearbox problem that occurred earlier all about? Was that water related also?

 

[Malabarista]

Just a tad surprised that this was the last bit of kit you looked at. Engines should always be the first.

Hi Sandy
With hindsight I now realise this. unfortunately as I am neither cynical enough, Scottish enough nor engineer enough I didn't think of it. In fact I was so convinced that the engine was the least of my worries (reconditioned 2016 remember) that I actually bought a new loom for it as the old one was a bit hacked about. I will be concentrating more on the three missing flaws in my character in the future. (ps does anyone have a Scottish mother I can borrow

 

[Malabarista]

what was the gearbox problem that occurred earlier all about? Was that water related also?

oh dear. the question I was dreading! yes it was emulsified oil in the gearbox that had caused it to fail. this was confirmed by the engineer that swapped it out for me. In my defence (although really is there is none) the engineer did tell me that he had come across this situation before where people had stripped out the engine and forgotten to recon the gearbox. With hindsight I now realise that this should have been a large red flag prompting me to get the engine at the very least checked out. I can only put it down to complete numptyness on my part.
thanks for completing my confessional.

 

[lw395]

likely as not, when the PO had flooding problems, he paid someone to do the work. That engineer may have just changed the oil and filters, spun the water out of the bores and put the injectors back in. Then fired it up, and given it a quick lick of "recon" paint. It is unfortunately still not uncommon to see "recons" of that nature from time to time. He may have told you about the recon in good faith, not that saying all that is much help - but you may be able to ask him on the strength of it who did the engine. Unlikely after all this time they will do anything about it, but if it is a one man band boat engineer, he may fear his rep.

Possibly the PO paid a mechanic to 'sort the engine out' or some other phrase, which has morphed into 'recondtioned'?
A 'recon' engine or other part often only means it's been got back to 'fit for purpose'. Not as good as new. Major defects fixed and fit for purpose. Warranty anything from 3 months to 2 years?

I'm not familiar with the exact motor, but I would assume that in a post-flooding situation, the starter should have been removed and cleaned and dried or I'd have not expect the OP to have got home. So how is the flywheel cover (AKA bellhousing?) full of water? Should this not drain anyway? Can that water really have been in there during several hours motoring home? What vents and drains are there for this space?

 

[solent clown]

it's a tough learning experience, but sounds like you have got to the bottom of it. I would bet the engine was just flushed and shined up as I said. Might still be saveable though if it is ok internally. Pop the head off and have a look. (if your engineer hasnt already done so) It is surprising how much a diesel can take and still come back from. You will probably need at least the flywheel refacing and ringing, and the ancilliaries attached to it, but all may not be lost. The BER part of thbe equation may be mostly labour - if you could do the work yourself you might be ok.

 

[earlybird]

Having now read your pre-purchase thread, I realise that the sea-water in the engine most probably dates back to the flooding incident.
The PO seemingly arranged and paid for someone to recover the engine from that event, work which now shows to have been poorly done.
The PO, at the time of sale, might have genuinely believed that the engine had been restored to good order, after all, you say that it ran well, though the sale term "reconditioned" is contentious.
In that case, any dispute may well be between the PO and the contractor who worked on the engine. Could that line of enquiry be followed up?

 

[[70521]]

Hi Sandy
With hindsight I now realise this. unfortunately as I am neither cynical enough, Scottish enough nor engineer enough I didn't think of it. In fact I was so convinced that the engine was the least of my worries (reconditioned 2016 remember) that I actually bought a new loom for it as the old one was a bit hacked about. I will be concentrating more on the three missing flaws in my character in the future. (ps does anyone have a Scottish mother I can borrow

That made me chuckle thanks, I have a grim week ahead full of meetings from tomorrow morning. Sadly, my mother died about 18 months ago so can't lend you to her, my late father would have been more use as he served 10 years at sea as a marine engineer.

I consider the engine the most complicated bit of kit on a boat, saying that the electrical system on my current boat was mindbogglingly complex and I've only finally got it sorted after getting a sparky in who works in boats, and need to be fully understood before moving onto the easy bits.

 

[Heckler]

After a year of toiling on the boring bits (after work and weekends) I finally got around to the engine. Looks very lovely on the outside but after removing the air filter i noticed that there was a significant amount of rust on the turbo blades. I called in a marine engineer and together we looked around and came to the conclusion that the chances that this engine was ‘reconditioned in 2016’ ( as stated on the selling particulars) was virtually zero. So we hauled the engine out, put it on a test bench and it was thoroughly tested. Upon removing the flywheel cover my marine engineer was soaked by rusty seawater ( tasted) and as every bolt and nut he attempted to undo was either seized or very evidently undisturbed in recent years it appears that no way has it been ‘reconditioned’.
Some of you may remember that i bought the boat a little over a year ago. My question to you learned lot is …do i have any recourse against the seller after this much time?
I have been advised that the yanmar 4JH3TE engine is completely FUBARED and BER to boot. With secondhand/reconditioned and new engines costing large wedges of beer tokens i am interested in finding out if there is anything i can do apart from suck it up and start saving.
Thanks for reading
Dave

Suck it up, its too late, emulsified gear oil? hohum! why did you change the box? Do you trust your existing engineer? Ive seen to many tooth suckers showing off their so called knowledge.
Take the head off, check the bores, if it ran a year ago there shouldnt be much wrong with it. Standing from a year ago? Depending on what you did to conserve it it should be ok. Clean the bores if necessary, regrind the valves if necessary.
The bottom end? Most diesels are bullet proof.
Stu

 

[Malabarista]

That made me chuckle thanks, I have a grim week ahead full of meetings from tomorrow morning. Sadly, my mother died about 18 months ago so can't lend you to her, my late father would have been more use as he served 10 years at sea as a marine engineer.

I consider the engine the most complicated bit of kit on a boat, saying that the electrical system on my current boat was mindbogglingly complex and I've only finally got it sorted after getting a sparky in who works in boats, and need to be fully understood before moving onto the easy bits.

Sorry for your loss Sandy but glad to bring a little cheer ahead of grimness. my own father was an RSM and I shudder to think of what he must be thinking looking down at his singularly inept son. I have also been wrestling with electrics and managed to replace the battery cables, switch gear and battery charger which were dire and non operational.

 

[PaulRainbow]

As far as getting anything from the previous owner goes, i think Tranona is correct in his first post and i think the chances of getting anything are about zero. You have no recourse with the "mechanic" that did the work, his contract was with the PO. You motored the boat away a year ago, now you're saying the engine was faulty when you bought the boat, if the PO just shrugs his shoulders in court and says it was fine when you bought it, you drove it away, you must have flooded the engine, who's to say he's wrong ?

You motored the boat home, then subsequently replaced the gearbox, so i'm finding it very difficult to see how the bell housing being full of sea water could have happened prior to you buying the boat. That water must have got into the bell housing after you changed the gearbox, surely ?

So, you've sorted the gearbox, that's one job done. I would now remove the engine and disassemble it. Head off, sump off, crank out, etc. Access the damage and replace the unfixable bits, which may well not be too much. Spares should be easily obtainable and once rebuilt, the engine will likely be far better than anything secondhand.