Reconditioned a legal term?

[Malabarista]

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 .[/QUOTE

hi. I will post the verdict from French Marine as soon as I have it.

 

[lw395]

hi the engine was removed from the boat to ascertain whether it had been actually reconditioned (as advertised ) or not. this was not in an attempt to sue somebody but in an attempt to ensure that the engine would continue to function. we had lost faith in the donk after it's many failings. these were...
1. during the sea trial the morse control for the engine was found to be stiff and not engaging the gear properly. this temporarily fixed by the PO.
2. when the boat was being lifted out for the survey the ignition key snapped off in the barrel as it was very rusted.
3. when it was being put back onto a finger berth after the survey and wash down the morse control failed completely and had to be repaired by a fitter in the marina. we were advised that the control itself had failed as there was an unusually stiff gearbox.
4. whilst motoring down the Hamble to take her to her new home the morse control cable failed and we were forced to attach a mole wrench to the gearbox itself to change gear.
5. just off Brighton we attempted to start the engine and the gearbox seized.
6. A marine engineer examined the gearbox after we put into Eastbourne and pronounced it to be FUBARED due to the presence of sea water and subsequent corrosion. We replaced the gearbox with a reconditioned unit from French marine.
7. The fitter who replaced the gearbox failed to secure it properly to the prop shaft and it became disconnected in the lock at Eastbourne. (not really an engine problem per se but included in this list to demonstrate why we had lost faith in the whole damn thing.)
8. Upon our arrival off Camber and preparing to enter the river the engine failed due to the starter motor seizing.
9. The rusty state of all the ancillaries including what looked like rust on the turbo blades but after receiving further information on here now seems to be some other contamination.
10. the worn state of the engine mounts.

these all combined led me to suspect that we would need to recondition the engine ourselves. this is why I wanted it removed to see if there were any way we would be able to get it to a state where we could start to have trust in it again. (or replace it with something else)
my original question on this forum was prompted by the marine engineer who said that there was absolutely no way that the engine could have been reconditioned a year ago.
he also mentioned to me that it had been resprayed badly and with little care to overspray.
I felt that after our fairly expensive failings with the engine we had been misinformed (well lied to) about the engine having been reconned to anybodies understanding of that term which seemed to vary wildly depending on with whom we spoke.
thus the post.

The events I've put in bold, is this before or after the year had elapsed?

 

[Malabarista]

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.

hi Paul (Mr Rainbow?)
the engineer who removed the engine started to strip it down and called me in to discuss whether I wanted him to continue (saving me money) to strip an engine that was so obviously buggered. I made the call to stop there (without very much knowledge) as the engined had been described to me as "worth £500 on ebay if I am lucky". It appears now that I may have been hasty in making that call and that had the engine been fully stripped the prognosis may have been different. my call tho' and not really the fault of the engineer.

 

[Malabarista]

Anyway,
Out of interest , how,s the boat coming along?. any pics?.

Steveeasy

I am working slowly due to inexperience, time restraints and general laziness. however I have managed to mostly degunge her. I have stripped out of all necessaries and painted 90% of the bilges, 100% of the forepeak incl. chain locker, anchor well repaired and painted ,replaced many seals on deck fittings that were leaking removed the masts to fit mast steps and repair existing worn fittings. I have scraped out and prepped the inside of the four water tanks and diesel tanks (two) I have replaced most of the plumbing, about 50% of the seacocks have been unsealed and made good along with the engine room 80% finished etc etc etc..........

 

[Malabarista]

There was nothing wrong with the engine, it flooded. All that was required to "re-condition" it was to revert it to it's original state. Drain everything, clean, check, re-paint. There would have been no need for crank grinding, cylinder boring or anything else if it was done straight away.

There is plenty of evidence that this work was done. There are pictures of the engine being removed from the boat, it has clearly been painted and it was in running order when the OP bought the boat. The surveyor, whilst not carrying out an engine survey as such, didn't see anything wrong with it, he checked the oil, no water in there one resumes. The OP considered that the engine was running OK. The engine got the boat back to the OP's home berth.

well...eventually.....after replacing the gearbox and being taken under tow twice! but I take your point.

 

[lw395]

So there is actually nothing to indicate that the main bits of the engine (crank, pistons, bores, valvegear, injection...) are actually defective?
Gearbox with seized selector, a few dodgy ancillaries?

 

[Malabarista]

I think we all playing on words . Recon/ overhaul

The OP engine was working when he brought the boat , there was no signs of it not working how it should ,
there is signs that it's been removed and repainted at the very less . Which suggest some kind of work has been done .
Although no one wish to say it , an good working engine has been remove just for the sake of it on the say of an engineer ,
Who other then the OP know if the guy is diesel qualified or just a guy with a box of tools , I think most of us know the type of guy I mean .
I guess that Dave as now lost some confidence in the guy or the guy as not got the qualification to write a report that would stand up in court if the need arise ,
So to spend more money asking another company to take over the report .
This may be a case where poor Dave as been at the very less bad advise to remove the engine .
Dave as now paid out to have the engine removed , he paid the first engineer to pull it part , he now passed or going to pass it on to another company who going to charge him for a report then more cost to put it all back to gather .
all money he could be useing else where .

this is true Vic. but the fact still remains that there was no way we were going to sea with the engine having failed us so many times without getting it thoroughly checked out. the original report on the engine told me that it was 'probably knackered'. the removal of the engine was to find out whether that was true or not. my original post was because I was feeling a bit p.o. with the PO (or his agent) having lied to me (him). the engine had been removed and cleaned up as Paulrainbow stated as there was no water in the engine oil (unlike the gearbox which had been left full of emulsified oil and corroded to a state where it seized shortly after the sea trial
thanks for your opinion

 

[jonjo7]

I would imagine the purpose of painting the engine was the normal one, to stop it going rusty after cleaning/degreasing it, and to make it look acceptable and easy to keep clean.
Entirely normal sound practice and in no way ever an indicator of internal work.

Agreed if this was an isolated fact. However the yacht was then put on the market and described as having a reconditioned engine. Combined these facts can be construed as an act of deliberate deception in pursuit of fraudulently enhancing that yachts perceived value.

I suggest the OP does not present his tale of delivery trip woe, it is mainly tangential consumer tittletattle. He should make a claim relating to fraudulently raised market value.

 

[Malabarista]

I just come across your thread , before you brought the boat , there 17 pages , time and time again you where advise to check into the engine history ,.
the was lots of conflict info about when the engine was put in , replace even what was done to it , which the OP was fully awhere off.
This alone should had set off bells ringing ,
That was the time to get and engineer report .
Why now question the engine history ?

good point. the questions were asked and we were told that although the boat had been semi submerged the engine had been removed and reconditioned a few months prior to the sale. my failing was to believe the PO hence my disappointment now. Muppetry has also had its part to play in my decision to put off dealing with the engine until now. thanks for raising this. it is not just for me but for others who may find themselves in a similar situation in the future that I asked. I often use old posts on here to teach me how to do the dozens of jobs I have done already and expect to use many more. maybe this one will aid others

 

[Malabarista]

The events I've put in bold, is this before or after the year had elapsed?

all before. the engine has been wrapped up in several blankets and tarps and with a heater placed nearby (when needed ) ever since I removed the hatch above it to change the leaky seal on the hatch. it has not been started.

 

[sailaboutvic]

I suggest the OP does not present his tale of delivery trip woe, it is mainly tangential consumer tittletattle. He should make a claim relating to fraudulently raised market value.

I a bit lost , the OP brought an 60 to 70 k yacht after an offer for 37k ? Engine or no engine he got more then market valve .
And so far we don't know what work was done to the engine , he only got the word of a guy who took a look at it and said its need to come out its Fcuk .
I clearly remember someone saying that about a engine on an old boat of mine , 2000 hours later it was still going well and some years later after it was sold he boat still got the same engine in . No major work done just new injectors

 

[lw395]

It seems to me the OP should have raised the gearbox fault with the seller as soon as it became apparent.
I don't see an evidence that the actual engine needed any work.
It seems entirely possible the engine was taken out, cleaned and checked. Probably what I would do as an amateur is take off sump and rocker covers, inspect and clean. If you can see everything is good, what is there to re-condition? If you can run it up on a test bench so much the better. Had it been stripped and re-assembled, it would be no better, worse in fact, due to being assembled in a typical mechanic's grubby shed instead of a nice clean factory with all the right tools etc etc.

The gearbox was clearly dead, but is that part of the engine? Debatable point, they are often considered a unit, but not always.
Anyway, the stiff shift should have been picked up before purchase. Any reasonable person would have looked at the oil.
Starter motor and alternator I would expect to replace after a dunking.

The market value of a yacht that's known to have been swamped is already seriously degraded, because of the expectation of problems.
I imagine the OP got the boat well below market value of a similar boat with a clean history?

 

[lw395]

all before. the engine has been wrapped up in several blankets and tarps and with a heater placed nearby (when needed ) ever since I removed the hatch above it to change the leaky seal on the hatch. it has not been started.

You should have gone back to the seller with those faults at the time, if it was a sea trial.
Sounds like you have stored the engine in a boat that lets the rain in. That was likely the cause of subsequent problems.
A brand new engine could equally have been rendered worthless under a tarp for an extended time.

 

[jonjo7]

I a bit lost , the OP brought an 60 to 70 k yacht after an offer for 37k ? Engine or no engine he got more then market valve .

Correction. The OP purchased a £37k yacht with a "reconditioned engine" for £37k.

 

[sailaboutvic]

this is true Vic. but the fact still remains that there was no way we were going to sea with the engine having failed us so many times without getting it thoroughly checked out. the original report on the engine told me that it was 'probably knackered'. the removal of the engine was to find out whether that was true or not. my original post was because I was feeling a bit p.o. with the PO (or his agent) having lied to me (him). the engine had been removed and cleaned up as Paulrainbow stated as there was no water in the engine oil (unlike the gearbox which had been left full of emulsified oil and corroded to a state where it seized shortly after the sea trial
thanks for your opinion

Dave please don't think I don't simplify with you , I do , I think you been misled more times then once by different people ,
I also think you may have disregard the engine may have a problem because you tho you was getting a bargain , 44 foot moody for 37k or so you tho , but at the end of the day it was up to you and your surveyor to check this out ,
an compression test would had told an good engineer quite a lot as well as vis signs of smoke , oil and how it sounds you don't need to strip an engine to look inside .

It's one year on now and let's says it's found that the big end are shot , how are you going to prove that you not run that engine without oil or broken ring again who to say it not broken while you been using it ,
personally and I no more a lawyer then others here saying to sue the guy , I think you just going to waste more money and time and give yourself a lot more stress .

In your last posting you say { there was no way we were going to sea with the engine having failed us so many times }
I can understand that but I must had miss where you posted that , as I understood the engine worked fine and it was the gearbox that gave you problem .
If that was the case I would had the engine looked at as soon as I arrived to the Marina .

 

[sailaboutvic]

Correction. The OP purchased a £37k yacht with a "reconditioned engine" for £37k.

Firstly we not established if any work been done on the engine .
Everyone got there own idea what the meaning of reconditioned , no matter what you or I consider it mean , so the fact that the engine been removed and painted some work has been done .
It's a lot of work to remove an engine just to tart it up , easily done why in place .
Lastly a boat sold for less then almost half it's market valve , you can't make an argument it's price been over inflated ,
if you want to sell me an 150k boat for 75k without an engine , I take it off your hands no problem .
Some people ( not saying the OP is one ) see a cheap boat then make a stupid offer thinking there going to get a bargain , only to find out late there a lot more that needed doing to it then their can imagine,
There was so much written about the boat and its history that most people would had stayed clear and the once who didn't would had investigated it a lot more before buying .

 

[jonjo7]

Everyone got there own idea what the meaning of reconditioned , no matter what you or I consider it mean ,

Your statement is irrelevant. A trained legal mind would conclude that zero conditioning does not equal reconditioned, whatever definition you choose.

A small claims court judge will assume the boat sold at its market value, the only point of interest is whether any discount was applied in acknowledgement of recognised faults.

 

[lw395]

How do you recondition something into the condition it is already in?

 

[Heckler]

I'll say it again, the chance of a county court claim being successful is zero, dad, zilch, fur call.

I'd also say the chances that it's knackered beyond economic repair is also close to zero. A new lump is 12 grand, that's a lot of repair work. On the bench, this thing is going to take half a day to reduce to a pile of nuts and bolts. If it needs a lot of cleaning and rust removal it might take a couple of days, let's allow a few tea breaks at the OPs expense and call it three days. That ain't a fortune in labour, unless your mechanic is charging silly money.

Parts wise, all new gaskets and seals, maybe a new turbo. Crank should have survived, but if it's as rusty as a horse shoe a shot blast and grind, with new shells, and it's as good as new. Bores will almost certainly hone, add some rings and they're also nearly as good as new, maybe they won't even need rings. Hard to imagine much wrong with the top end, a good clean, grind the valves in, maybe. Starter and alternator away to be checked, same with the diesel pump and injectors.

A lot of that is worst case scenario, half of it will probably be OK. But if all of the above was done the engine would be practically as good as new, certainly far better than anything you'd buy second hand.

Exactly what I said last week. All this nonsense about court, as I said, that bus left a long time ago!
Stu

 

[Heckler]

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 .

Thats why I asked a week ago did he trust his engineer!
Stu