Reconditioned a legal term?

[RichardS]

We had the raw-water anti-syphon valve fail and over the winter, water syphoned through the exhaust manifold, then into the engine. I naively tried to start the engine without checking and soon discovered there were 5 or 6 litres of seawater in the sump!

I assume that you left the boat over winter with the seawater inlet seacock open?

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

What if the seller says " you drove the boat away, running fine. You changed the transmission. One year later you removed the engine and found the bell housing to be full of sea water. That sea water could not have been in there for the journey home, neither could it have stayed in there during a transmission change. Therefor, i submit that you must have somehow allowed water into the engine."

"I'm not bringing this action about the water in the engine. I'm bringing this action about the engine into which the water got.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I'd like to call "bollox" on this one. I fail to see how your "engineer" can tell the difference between a bolt that was correctly torqued up in 2011 (when the engine was built) and one that was correctly torqued up 18 months/2years ago.

Undisturbed original paint? Single bite mark from spring washer? Read a few AAIB reports and you'll learn what a competent engineer can discover from careful examination of an engine.

 

[lw395]

I agree with Solentclown. Lifes a pig sometimes, but I strongly suspect any approach to the vendor this far on will earn a simple anglo saxon request to er, go away.

If you pursue it you could expect to be accused of having abused the engine in the 12months you have had it,. How would you prove to a court it hasnt had several hundred hours use? That it was properly laid up? the rust on the turbo would be pointed to immediately showing you didnt protect it properly with a fogging spray, and taped up orifiices (unless you did and can prove it). At the end of the day it would be you and your engineers opinion that it wasnt 'reconditioned' against whatever evidence the vendor might produce, such as a mechanic who has worked on it and left it in good working order. And so on.... Tough, but I dont think you have much hope of a claim at this distance without a VERY clever (and expensive!) lawyer, and as Solent Clown says, it could easily put you off the whole boat anyway.

I think you are right.
Basically we have a process for buying and selling used boats.
It's up to the buyer to carry out whatever survey he thinks he needs. Maybe even a sea trial.

If you are buying on the strength of a claim that a motor was recon'ed, in my view that's a pretty variable thing. Unless you see lots of detailed receipts, it seems to mean little more than 'put back into working order'.

 

[Jim@sea]

Perhaps the way forward is to start an inexpensive claim through the Small Claims Court on the basis that the boat was "wrongly described" in that it had been advertised that the engine had been "reconditioned" whereas an initial examination revealed that no work of a remedial nature had taken place apart from some "cosmetic" painting.
Think of a figure perhaps £3000 which you would accept towards having the engine reconditioned properly and submit the claim.
Also you could ask for "Discovery" of the invoice for the re-conditioning,
It would be up to the defendant to prove that his allegation that the engine had been re-conditioned for him to win the case.
You may (hopefully) find that the boat seller may offer you a reasonable figure rather than going to court.

 

[lw395]

Undisturbed original paint? Single bite mark from spring washer? Read a few AAIB reports and you'll learn what a competent engineer can discover from careful examination of an engine.

But we know the OP's mechanic has been at it, and that it was given a coat of paint.

 

[JumbleDuck]

But we know the OP's mechanic has been at it, and that it was given a coat of paint.

Those were just examples. After all this time I wouldn't be any too sure of success, but I don't think the OP should give up just yet. The Small Claims Track was designed especially to allow this sort of relatively minor dispute to be resolved without great expense, and while costs can be awarded you have to be pretty spectacularly unreasonable for that to happen.

 

[Hoolie]

I assume that you left the boat over winter with the seawater inlet seacock open?

Richard

Yeah - careless, I know. The anti-syphon was the neoprene disk type and it had stuck. Now changed for a different type.

 

[oldharry]

If you are determined to pursue the matter with the original Vendor through the Small Claims Court, Citizens Advice Bureau is a very good starting point to find out if you have a reasonable chance of success. I've never used it but Im told the Clerk of the Court will also advise you if they think you have a reasonable case or if its likely to be a waste of yours (and their) time.

 

[PaulRainbow]

"I'm not bringing this action about the water in the engine. I'm bringing this action about the engine into which the water got.

"The engine was fine until you allowed water into it. As evidenced by the fact that you motored the boat home and have been using it for a year".

"I'm not sure exactly what was done to the engine, i believe that some dismantling and cleaning was done, followed by a coat of paint. Billy-Bob from the Rose and Crown did the work, for cash, and i've not seen him around lately, so i can't tell you any more"

 

[JumbleDuck]

"The engine was fine until you allowed water into it. As evidenced by the fact that you motored the boat home and have been using it for a year".

Irrelevant. The subsequent damage to the engine is not at issue; it simply led to the discovery that the engine was not as represented.

Parallel: I pay someone to fit new tyres to my car, including tubes. Twelve months later I have a blowout and discover that the tubes I paid for were not fitted. The damage to the tyre is irrelevant, save that it led to the discovery that the work was not done.

Alternative: I buy a "reconditioned engine". Twelve months later a water pipe fails, the head gasket blows and, while replacing the head, I find the pistons are still the original standard size ones running in significantly oval bores. The overheating and head gasket failure are not at issue, but they did lead to the discovery of faulty work earlier.

It's very interesting, but a little depressing, to see how many people think a mechanic should be able to get away with calling a quick blow over with paint a reconditioning as long as it's not noticed for a year.

 

[PaulRainbow]

It's very interesting, but a little depressing, to see how many people think a mechanic should be able to get away with calling a quick blow over with paint a reconditioning as long as it's not noticed for a year.

Actually, i agree. One of the first real jobs i did when i left school was to work in an engine reconditioning centre. I've also reconditioned many engines since in the course of my work, along with a lot of rebuilds. A recon to me means, crank ground and new shells, bored/re-lined with new pistons and rings, fully rebuilt cylinder head, new oil and water pumps, all new gaskets and seals etc.

On the other hand, rebuilt could mean anything. It may just be a strip, clean replace essential parts and put back together.

In either case, i would fully document all of the work and the parts used.

However, there is no legal definition of "reconditioned" or "rebuilt" and everyone seems to have a different view. The judge at the small claims court will be well aware that there is no legal definition, so it's impossible to say that the engine wasn't "reconditioned". The PO could simply say that he paid someone to get the water out of the engine, clean everything up, service and repaint it, and as far as he was concerned that means reconditioned.

It is worth noting though, at this moment in time the engine in question has not been disassembled (as far as i know), so we don't actually know what has/has not been done, neither do we know whether there is actually anything wrong with the engine.

 

[doug748]

It looks like Dave will not be doing anything hasty:

" I am far from harassing the PO, in fact unless he is on this forum he will know nothing about it yet. when/if I do contact him it will be with a view to checking that he was not ripped off by a mechanic and if so what WE can do to put things right" Malabarista.

This seems sensible, but even if the PO is interested, helpful and has chapter and verse in writing, the chances of getting to any errant contractor look slim. As the others have suggested, If he turns his fire on the vendor probably even slimmer.

Nor is a small court judgement the magic wand that is implied by some. If a guilty party can't or won't pay even a County Court Judgement can mean little; except it costs you a wedge of time and money.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Actually, i agree. One of the first real jobs i did when i left school was to work in an engine reconditioning centre. I've also reconditioned many engines since in the course of my work, along with a lot of rebuilds. A recon to me means, crank ground and new shells, bored/re-lined with new pistons and rings, fully rebuilt cylinder head, new oil and water pumps, all new gaskets and seals etc.

When I was a student there was a place in Glasgow with a sign saying "Reconditioned engines £40. Second-hand engines bought for cash". Sounds legit, eh?

However, there is no legal definition of "reconditioned" or "rebuilt" and everyone seems to have a different view. The judge at the small claims court will be well aware that there is no legal definition, so it's impossible to say that the engine wasn't "reconditioned". The PO could simply say that he paid someone to get the water out of the engine, clean everything up, service and repaint it, and as far as he was concerned that means reconditioned.

I agree, and I think that's the weakness in the case. It all depends on what the OP was told at the time. IANAL but I believe the principle to be that if there is no established legal meaning, words are assumed to have their everyday meaning. To me, "reconditioning" is as you say above: regrind, rebore, new pistons, shells, seals, oil pump and seals at the very least for a short engine. However it's not unreasonable to think that it might also cover the lesser amount of work needed to recover from a dunking.

 

[earlybird]

.

Parallel: I pay someone to fit new tyres to my car, including tubes. Twelve months later I have a blowout and discover that the tubes I paid for were not fitted. The damage to the tyre is irrelevant, save that it led to the discovery that the work was not done.

That is not really a parallel to this case. In your example, you have a contract with a trader. Hence CRA and all that.
Here, it was the PO who had a contract, presumably with a trader, for work to be carried out on the engine.
The PO acted as a private individual to sell the boat. He is only bound to give facts which he reasonably believes to be true.
Quite a different situation.

 

[lw395]

If you look at dictionary definitions, you get things like 'return to good condition'.
Ebay suggests looking for a 15 or 30 day warranty.....

 

[RichardS]

...... while costs can be awarded you have to be pretty spectacularly unreasonable for that to happen.

I'm afraid that's not true. Lawyers fees of either side apart, which are usually excluded, if you lose you will have to pay the other sides costs plus your own court fees and costs. The other side might well decide to commission their own engineers report if they don't like yours and you could end up paying for both.

The reasonability of your case does not enter into it ..... if you lose, you lose. :ambivalence:

Richard

 

[Hoolie]

Notwithstanding all this polemic, I believe the OP should get the engine ticking over again ie repaired as necessary. Then just get on with the rest of his life and enjoy his sailing ... ...

 

[JumbleDuck]

That is not really a parallel to this case. In your example, you have a contract with a trader. Hence CRA and all that.

The parallel was supposed to be a fault which only comes to light later, and after some other damage has happened to the faulty thing.

The PO acted as a private individual to sell the boat. He is only bound to give facts which he reasonably believes to be true.

Indeed, and that's the nub of it.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I'm afraid that's not true. Lawyers fees of either side apart, which are usually excluded, if you lose you will have to pay the other sides costs plus your own court fees and costs. The other side might well decide to commission their own engineers report if they don't like yours and you could end up paying for both.

Sorry, I should have said "legal costs". Unless the judge thinks you are unreasonable, loss of earnings and expert witness costs are heavily capped, at £90/day and £750 respectively. And, as you say, lawyers fees are usually excluded. However ...