Reconditioned a legal term?

[sailaboutvic]

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 ... ...

i couldn't agree more ,
If Dave want to put blane on anyone it should be his surveyor , in case everyone missed it , so Dave said his surveyor just excepted the broker listing that the engine was reconditioned ( what every that may mean ) and didn't investigate any further .
but I guess he got just as much chance at sueing his surveyor as he has the PO and winning .

What ever any of us wish to think the meaning of reconditioned is , the fact it it could mean anything ,
before selling my old Gererator I replace the water pump ,decoke the top of the piston , replace the head gasket adjusted the tappers re new the rocker cover gasket and replace some of the wiring loom , I could had easily said I reconditioned it , although I didn't use them words , in my view I had.
Now let's say some week down the line or in his case a year later , the guy comes back and the con rod broke , his engineer stripped it down and found the big end shells wasn't replace , does he have a claim?
of cause not .

Any way we all still waiting to hear what French marine have to say .

 

[AntarcticPilot]

i couldn't agree more ,
If Dave want to put blane on anyone it should be his surveyor , in case everyone missed it , so Dave said his surveyor just excepted the broker listing that the engine was reconditioned ( what every that may mean ) and didn't investigate any further .
but I guess he got just as much chance at sueing his surveyor as he has the PO and winning .

Most surveyors specifically EXCLUDE the engine, beyond checking things like sea-cocks, stern glands and external condition. If you want a survey of the engine, you usually have to engage an engineer separately from the marine surveyor.

 

[sailaboutvic]

Most surveyors specifically EXCLUDE the engine, beyond checking things like sea-cocks, stern glands and external condition. If you want a survey of the engine, you usually have to engage an engineer separately from the marine surveyor.

Your quite right ,and most will advise you if you want an engine surveyed you need to do just that , but it seen the OP surveyer just execpted the engine was reconditioned and never advise this ,
You have to take in account the OP Seen not to know much about boats unlike some of us , so he relieving on the surveyor to put him right .
We also have to remember , the engine been working fine and was still working fine and the only reason this has come to light is because of some rust blades , and on the say so of a engineer ,
very strange , HANDS UP GUYS how many of us would remover a prefect good working engine .
at this point we don't know the qualifications of this guy , his he another guy with a set of spanner for Christmas looking to make a few bob ,

for all we know , there could be nothing wrong with the engine it self , so all this sueing lark could be a totally waste of time .

 

[Tranona]

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.

There is no such thing as a "legal definition" of a term such as this, nor does there need to be. I have covered this issue in depth earlier if anybody has bothered to read it. The court will consider the evidence you present to show that the vendor misrepresented the state of the engine. It will look at what the representation was intended to convey and whether the actuality matched that. There is no difficulty in establishing what a reconditioning process is expected to cover, starting with the dictionary definitions I quoted and then looking at what this entails in practice. I also gave sources where standards could be found as well as what reconditioners of engines actually do. There is nothing unique about this case that would lead to any expectation that would be different from current practice. That is, the engine would be dismantled and worn parts replaced - exactly as the dictionary definition, essentially the same as your everyday understanding.

The difficulty for the OP now is that the failure that caused him to investigate further is probably unconnected with whether the engine was reconditioned or not - but that is irrelevant to the potential claim. What is missing so far is actual facts that can support the claim that reconditioning has not been carried out. This can only be done by dismantling and inspecting the engine's internals.

I don't see a problem related to the year gap if he can prove that the engine has not run more than the short time to move the boat, which seems to be clear in that it has been in the same berth all the time. There is a potential problem in that dismantling may uncover damage related to the ingress of water, but if there is no sign of that the current condition of the internals should be the same as when the claim was made.

I find it strange that some have seen my advice as meaning that I think the OP should pursue the case and he is likely to be successful. However, that is not what I have said. The law on misrepresentation is there to cover this sort of rare case, so he can pursue it. The advice I have given is about HOW to go about it and the sort of case he will have to build to have a chance of success. There is insufficient facts available at the moment to determine whether there is a case, but the sums of money involved mean that it is one course of action that should be considered.

 

[PaulRainbow]

There is no such thing as a "legal definition" of a term such as this, nor does there need to be. I have covered this issue in depth earlier if anybody has bothered to read it.

Well, if you've covered it in depth, that's that then, done deal. We should all have stopped posting at #3

 

[Tranona]

Well, if you've covered it in depth, that's that then, done deal. We should all have stopped posting at #3

No. You can take it or leave it. But some posters are posting as if the subject has not been covered already - and some with misinformation.


BTW it was actually post#2 that raised the possibility of legal action with the caveat that it depends on the facts, post#21 that outlined the process of pursuing through the Small Claims track, posts#48 and 65 cover ways in which you can define what you expect to see in a reconditioned engine. If you read other contributions where misrepresentation was discussed in more detail and additional information from the OP you can see that bringing a case is a possibility IF stripping down the engine shows that no work has been done that would justify the use of the word reconditioned.

My view is that if the facts (as yet unknown) do show that, then there is a case. Whether the OP feels it is worth the time and effort is another matter. However I think if there was clear evidence I would go down that route if my financial loss justified it.

The great thing about these threads is that they evolve as more contributions come in, more facts emerge and what might seem a clear position at the start changes and alternative courses of action open up. It does, however, help if those who want to contribute read what has been written already.

 

[ghostlymoron]

But you'd have to prove that the vendor's understanding of 'reconditioned' was the same. As someone said earlier,
a recon can vary from a complete rebuild to regrind valves and spray the outside.

See post#48. There is plenty of material to construct a meaningful definition of "reconditioned" from the sources I suggested.

The dictionary definition "overhaul and refit" is a good start - "overhaul" Thorough examination with repairs if necessary makes very clear what is expected.

 

[PaulRainbow]

If you read other contributions where misrepresentation was discussed in more detail and additional information from the OP you can see that bringing a case is a possibility IF stripping down the engine shows that no work has been done that would justify the use of the word reconditioned.

Removal of the seawater, cleaning, servicing and re-painting might justify the use of the word, as it has no legal definition and no standard to adhere to. If the vendor had said "re-manufactured" that would be a different kettle of fish altogether. Even people who "recondition", "re-manufacture" or "rebuild" have different ideas and opinions as to what constitutes "re-conditioned".

You have Googled a few examples of people opinions as to what "reconditioned" might mean. There are many others, some of which will say "little more than a clean and a coat of paint". As i said earlier, if the PO says that the engine was removed, drained, checked, cleaned, serviced and painted then that's what his definition of "reconditioned" is and there will be nothing revealed on a strip down to disprove his assertion that it was "reconditioned". He has pictures of the engine being removed and it was running when the OP bought the boat, nothing showed up in the sea trial.

I await the report from French Marine. But i am confident it will reveal nothing to support a case in the small claims court.

 

[lw395]

There is also the point that the engine, whether reconditioned or not, was in working condition when the OP got it and isn't now.
If the deterioration is not due to the seller's action/inaction but due to the buyer's, then the buyer can't prove what he bought was substandard.

Leaving aside all the amateur lawyer stuff, how did the engine work fine a year ago but is BER now?
What exactly has happened, and would that have happened if the owner had taken every reasonable care?
Do we really believe that the bell housing has been full of sea all this time? How can that happen? And if so, would this be sufficient to make the engine BER? Or would it just have a rusty flywheel and an appetite for starter pinions?

It seems to me that the actual work needed on an engine that's been dunked is not necessarily anything like a full rebuild? If you take off the sump and see there's no significant rust and all the bits are still oily, you might be justified in doing much less work.
(As an aside, I have 'sorted' dunked outboards without so much as splitting a crank case, the only bits I regarded as suspect afterwards were the electrics....)

There is a spectrum of possibilities here.
At one end, the engine has some sort of latent damage that the buyer has no means of sorting through proper care of the engine.
At the other end, the engine was fine until the buyer neglected it for a year, and the same would have happened to a new or perfect engine.

If the reality is towards the middle of the spectrum, that seems to me fairly normal for used boats.

 

[pandos]

Funny I thought post #2. pretty much ruled out legal action, ....

." If you bought the boat privately you have no recourse to the seller. It was up to you to determine whether the boat was as described and suitable for your purpose......
....Sounds harsh but that is the risk of buying privately. Caveat Emptor.....

you might have recourse to a private seller if he had deliberately lied, and for example the engine had failed immediately after the transfer. ...... But one year of further use, not a chance."


No need for the misrepresentation to be knowingly false, and dangerous to bother trying to prove knowledge of the falsity.... innocent misrep is adequate for the OPs needs.

Post #10. admirably covers the legal situation....

The facts about the engine are yet to be established, and best they are established and carefully documented following a warning to the vendor,so he can have a representative present or choose to ignore the matter at his own peril.

good luck

Tony.

 

[sailaboutvic]

There is also the point that the engine, whether reconditioned or not, was in working condition when the OP got it and isn't now.
If the deterioration is not due to the seller's action/inaction but due to the buyer's, then the buyer can't prove what he bought was substandard.

Leaving aside all the amateur lawyer stuff, how did the engine work fine a year ago but is BER now?
What exactly has happened, and would that have happened if the owner had taken every reasonable care?
Do we really believe that the bell housing has been full of sea all this time? How can that happen? And if so, would this be sufficient to make the engine BER? Or would it just have a rusty flywheel and an appetite for starter pinions?

It seems to me that the actual work needed on an engine that's been dunked is not necessarily anything like a full rebuild? If you take off the sump and see there's no significant rust and all the bits are still oily, you might be justified in doing much less work.
(As an aside, I have 'sorted' dunked outboards without so much as splitting a crank case, the only bits I regarded as suspect afterwards were the electrics....)

There is a spectrum of possibilities here.
At one end, the engine has some sort of latent damage that the buyer has no means of sorting through proper care of the engine.
At the other end, the engine was fine until the buyer neglected it for a year, and the same would have happened to a new or perfect engine.

If the reality is towards the middle of the spectrum, that seems to me fairly normal for used boats.

Going back to posting 1# it doesn't sound that there was any thing wrong with the engine , at no point has the OP said there was a problem or the engine stop working .
By what he says , he spend a best part of the year working on other part of the boat , and when he got to working on the engine he found there rust problem ,

This is what the op say,

" 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. "

This is why I said it strange that anyone would pull an engine out just because of some rust on the blades , even more strange why any good engineer would suggest it ,

I can understand him stripping the turbo , But removing the engine ,

It just doesn't sound right to me , as if someone was trying to find fault with it to make a claim .

Even if French Marine after stripping it says the engine have signs of wear , it still doesn't mean the guy or who ever worked on the engine hasn't reconditioned it to a state they felt was work as it should . .

 

[lw395]

Going back to posting 1# it doesn't sound that there was any thing wrong with the engine , at no point has the OP said there was a problem or the engine stop working .
By what he says , he spend a best part of the year working on other part of the boat , and when he got to working on the engine he found there rust problem ,

This is what the op say,

" 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. "

This is why I said it strange that anyone would pull an engine out just because of some rust on the blades , even more strange why any good engineer would suggest it ,

I can understand him stripping the turbo , But removing the engine ,

It just doesn't sound right to me , as if someone was trying to find fault with it to make a claim .

I assume the engine was pulled out because it no longer worked?

 

[PaulRainbow]

I assume the engine was pulled out because it no longer worked?

That's incorrect. The OP removed the air filter and saw what he thought was rust on the turbo turbine, which is unlikely because the turbines are alloy. He showed this to his engineer who suggested removing the engine and who subsequently declared that the engine could not have been reconditioned, was furcked and beyond repair, all without disassembling the engine.

 

[sailaboutvic]

I assume the engine was pulled out because it no longer worked?

So would I , but that's not what the op saying .
To me and I might be wrong , the Op motored the boat to the Marina without any problem , or he not said he had .
Then he stand the boat for a year while working on it .
At some point he get to the engine and removes the air filter where he find the rusty blade .
Then a perfectly good working engine that so far hasn't given him any problem on the say of an engineer they decide to pull .
Crazy or what .

 

[JumbleDuck]

If Dave want to put blane on anyone it should be his surveyor

I've had my boat surveyed twice by two surveyors of good repute. Both surveys said, roughly speaking, "There is an engine there, but I'm not an engine expert and have no idea whether it's any good."

What ever any of us wish to think the meaning of reconditioned is , the fact it it could mean anything ,
before selling my old Gererator I replace the water pump ,decoke the top of the piston , replace the head gasket adjusted the tappers re new the rocker cover gasket and replace some of the wiring loom , I could had easily said I reconditioned it , although I didn't use them words , in my view I had.

As in this case, it would all depend on what you told the buyer. Sounds more like an overhaul than a recon to me.

 

[JumbleDuck]

There is no such thing as a "legal definition" of a term such as this, nor does there need to be.

How do you know? There are legal definitions of all sorts of things, sometimes quite unexpectedly. Though in this case I'd be very surprised if there was a legal definition in which case, as you say, it's the normal usage which counts.

 

[Malabarista]

Most surveyors specifically EXCLUDE the engine, beyond checking things like sea-cocks, stern glands and external condition. If you want a survey of the engine, you usually have to engage an engineer separately from the marine surveyor.

This was indeed the case. he did however check the engine oil and listened to it running. thanks for your input

 

[Tranona]

Removal of the seawater, cleaning, servicing and re-painting might justify the use of the word, as it has no legal definition and no standard to adhere to. If the vendor had said "re-manufactured" that would be a different kettle of fish altogether. Even people who "recondition", "re-manufacture" or "rebuild" have different ideas and opinions as to what constitutes "re-conditioned".

You have Googled a few examples of people opinions as to what "reconditioned" might mean. There are many others, some of which will say "little more than a clean and a coat of paint". As i said earlier, if the PO says that the engine was removed, drained, checked, cleaned, serviced and painted then that's what his definition of "reconditioned" is and there will be nothing revealed on a strip down to disprove his assertion that it was "reconditioned". He has pictures of the engine being removed and it was running when the OP bought the boat, nothing showed up in the sea trial.

I await the report from French Marine. But i am confident it will reveal nothing to support a case in the small claims court.

There does not have to be a "legal definition" - whatever that means. The court will consider the facts of the case within its context. The vendor has used the word to convey that something has been done to the engine (given its history) that justifies the use of the term to enhance its value. There is more than enough evidence that everyday use of the term implies that the engine has been stripped down and repairs carried out. That is both the dictionary definition and the way the term is used by businesses involved in the activity. This is not an argument about the standard of any work, nor whether the engine is satisfactory for its intended purpose, but whether any work was done to justify the claim made.

This is how our common law works. Very little is defined absolutely. The court has to decide on the facts whether there has been misrepresentation resulting in a loss to the buyer. The OP has to make his statement as to what he expected the vendor to mean (the vendor obviously thought it had meaning otherwise why use it). The term is in common everyday use (the man on the Clapham omnibus test) so one would expect to see some evidence of work carried out to meet the everyday meaning of the term. It is then up to the vendor to counter with his evidence that work was carried out to justify the use of the term.

All of this is hypothetical until the facts about the engine are established. Until then it is impossible for anyone to state categorically that there is no chance of a successful claim.

 

[Tranona]

How do you know? There are legal definitions of all sorts of things, sometimes quite unexpectedly. Though in this case I'd be very surprised if there was a legal definition in which case, as you say, it's the normal usage which counts.

I have no doubt that this term has come under scrutiny in the courts many times in the past, given the way it has been used and abused over the years. However it is unlikely that many cases have gone high enough to result in binding case law. Most cases will have been brought under consumer law (SOGA or now CRA) rather than misrepresentation in a transaction between two private individuals, particularly when as in this case it is only about one component part of the goods rather than the whole. On the other hand as I have tried to explain it is very simple as it revolves around establishing a fact about whether the work was done or not.

 

[sailaboutvic]

As in this case, it would all depend on what you told the buyer. Sounds more like an overhaul than a recon to me.

To the normal man in the street they both have the same meaning , just depend which one he decides to use .

(To recondition a machine or piece of equipment means to repair or replace all the parts that are damaged or broken.

If a piece of equipment is overhauled, it is cleaned, checked thoroughly, and repaired if necessary.)

Going by Collins's I must had recon has I repaired and replaced part ,
Just goes to show how reconditioned can mean any thing .