Reconditioned a legal term?

[Heckler]

Over the years I have noticed that people in your position exude positivity about their capacity to restore an engine back to health. It is very easy for a yacht owner to blow £1000 a year in this fix-up cycle, net result is that 10 years later £10,000 has gone and the engine is even older. The winners are the marine engineers because hourly rates distort financial ownership equation.


No. I only expect people to describe their yacht honestly or face legal consequences. A repair is not reconditioning.

We exude positivity because we know how to fix engines, we know where to get bits at proper prices, we know how long it takes to do things, we know when people are blowing smoke up peoples asses. Tooth suckers irritate us! We know that a recon, for example, of a VP MD22 can be done by people like us for about a grand using bits from parts4engines.com. Less than £500 for the parts, a couple of hundred for a rebore or hone and crank grind. A diesel pump recal and new injector tips, about £500. so a proper recon engine for less than£2k. Now if people are daft enough to pay £10k for a new engine, then more fool them!
Stu

 

[jonjo7]

We know that a recon, for example, of a VP MD22 can be done by people like us for about a grand using bits from parts4engines.com. Less than £500 for the parts, a couple of hundred for a rebore or hone and crank grind. A diesel pump recal and new injector tips, about £500. so a proper recon engine for less than£2k.

Great so now we have a spec of a comprehensive Recon which meets my definition of something more than a repair or service because it includes elective improvements. Your words make sense whereas Paul Rainbow seems contemptuous of elective improvements.

 

[PaulRainbow]

Great so now we have a spec of a comprehensive Recon which meets my definition of something more than a repair or service because it includes elective improvements. Your words make sense whereas Paul Rainbow seems contemptuous of elective improvements.

If you read the thread, rather than being an insulting troll you'll see where i described, in detail, my personal definition of "recon".

Try post #92 for starters.

 

[jonjo7]

If you read the thread, rather than being an insulting troll you'll see where i described, in detail, my personal definition of "recon".

I have and in your attempt to present yourself as the biggest marine engineer in the YBW village you have tripped over yourself with contradiction.

In post 123...

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.

At this point I conclude that simply flushing seawater from a flooded engine constitutes a reconditioned engine in your opinion.

In post 171...

You condemn pointless "kneejerk" reconditioning.

In post 162...

You don't take an engine out and start boring, grinding and replacing parts willy-nilly just because it got some water in it. There is no benefit, how does re-grinding a crank and fitting new shells improve an engine that just got wet ?

From these posts it is reasonable to conclude you are the type of marine engineer who will deem a routine repair as a reconditioning. An inoperative engine that was flooded with salt water, flushed and fired up again without other elective improvement has been repaired and not reconditioned.

Rather than skreaking "troll" in every post like an over sensitive teenager why not explain what was wrong with my concise definition of reconditioning.

Reconditioning must involve some degree of elective improvement otherwise it is just a repair or a routine service.

At one end of the scale we have repairs & servicing and at the other end there is re-manufacturing. Reconditioning sits on that scale somewhere.

 

[lw395]

Great so now we have a spec of a comprehensive Recon which meets my definition of something more than a repair or service because it includes elective improvements. Your words make sense whereas Paul Rainbow seems contemptuous of elective improvements.

There are other bits in an engine.
If it's high enough hours to need the crank reground, then valves, guides, camshaft tappets, oil pump and sundry bearings all want a good looking over.
This may be the difference between a 'good as new' job and a cheap recon.
I suspect there is, or has been, quite a market for superficial recons. One of the boats I had, the motor had been recon'd but I don't think particularly thoroughly. I think the PO had charter bookings or race commitments and wanted a quick engine swap. The engine was 'OK' but not like a new one.
Less power and less smooth, compared to a mate's boat, but still great if you're used to a 1GM....
It still did the job, and the boat was the kind of thing where I preferred to use the sails anyway.
It wasn't noticeably worse when we sold it, but we didn't put many hours on it.

 

[jonjo7]

I suspect there is, or has been, quite a market for superficial recons.

Just as likely is that a non technical yacht owner funds a succession of repairs with his local marine engineer and then at some point as the engineer hands over another large invoice he tries to placate the owners predicament by saying, "well over the years we have effectively reconditioned the engine". The following year when the yacht goes on the market the owner recalls the word "reconditioned" and that ends up in the sale description without supporting evidence.

 

[solent clown]

NOW COME ON CHAPS! It is clear who has the biggest willy around here so no more posturing. It is me! Ok, so it may be on my shoulders, but that isn't the point.
Now all play nicely together or I will take your ball away.

 

[Flica]

NOW COME ON CHAPS! It is clear who has the biggest willy around here so no more posturing. It is me! Ok, so it may be on my shoulders, but that isn't the point.
Now all play nicely together or I will take your ball away.

Well as metabarista was merely seeking some info about a fairly simple term, he's found himself under an artillery duel between what seem to be some extreme poseurs.
One has to have sympathy with his predicament!!

 

[RichardS]

Well as metabarista was merely seeking some info about a fairly simple term, he's found himself under an artillery duel between what seem to be some extreme poseurs.
One has to have sympathy with his predicament!!

"Extreme" pah! I've not joined in the crossfire on this one so "lightweight" would be a much more appropriate adjective.

Richard

 

[Malabarista]

Well as metabarista was merely seeking some info about a fairly simple term, he's found himself under an artillery duel between what seem to be some extreme poseurs.
One has to have sympathy with his predicament!!

Malabarista is bloody well enjoying the duel thanks. �� has Solent Clown been in the houses of Parliament?
If not why not he’s a natural.

 

[PaulRainbow]

From these posts it is reasonable to conclude you are the type of marine engineer who will deem a routine repair as a reconditioning. An inoperative engine that was flooded with salt water, flushed and fired up again without other elective improvement has been repaired and not reconditioned.

There are parts of this thread where i outlined my opinion of what "reconditioned" should mean, as i've already told you. But that's just my opinion and means nothing, everyone else has their own opinion and many differ.

Other posts are in the context of what might be said should legal action be pursued.

There is no "concise definition" of reconditioned, just opinions. Yours has no more validity than mine or anyone elses.

In over 40 years i have never invoiced a customer for a reconditioned engine, because the word has no definitive meaning.

You don't see anyone here coming forward to complain about my work or my invoicing. I've not attempted to gain any work from the OP, either in the thread or privately. I have freely offered my advice, so i'll thank you to mind your language.

 

[sailaboutvic]

Well as metabarista was merely seeking some info about a fairly simple term, he's found himself under an artillery duel between what seem to be some extreme poseurs.
One has to have sympathy with his predicament!!

I think most of us have sympathy with him I know I do , but I don't think it's reasonable to buy a boat with a very checkered history that has a engine that got an even checkered after being well warned about both by many on here , still buy it without looking into any problem or at the very less get the engine checked out ,
just because the word reconditioned was used in the listing , keep it a year , partly under a tarpaulin, then remove what was a perfect good running engine which he have had no problem with other then the alternators and a rusty looking started , because of some rusty on the turbo blades, all this on the say of one so call engineer , (in my view any good engineer would do some test on the engine before advise it to be removed) , to see if I deed work has been done on the engine , with a view he may have a case to recover his losses .
In the OP own words " the engine was the cleaners part of the boat and looked lovely and painted "

I wonder how most would react if after a year of selling a boat the guy inform you he going to sue you because he found some thing wrong with the boat .
Or worst he removed a good working engine in case there something wrong .

Even if after Dave get his report on the engine there still be no evidence that any fault found wasn't cause while in his ownership , so which ever way you look at it , he hasn't got a chance of winner any case .

It's a shame he didn't post here first before removing it , most lightly he would had been told to have at less a compression test before pulling it out .
Could had saved him a lot of stress and money .

 

[solent clown]

Malabarista is bloody well enjoying the duel thanks. �� has Solent Clown been in the houses of Parliament?
If not why not he’s a natural.

Hee hee, yes I have been in our hallowed seat of government, but merely behind the scenes, and mostly to have my ears pinned back. To be berated by a minion of a minion of an aide of a secretary of a minister for spending an infinitesimal amount of a defence budget over what was agreed taught me diplomacy and anger management skills I never learned in the military.
It's a bit like being on a forum eh ;-)

 

[Tranona]

I think most of us have sympathy with him I know I do , but I don't think it's reasonable to buy a boat with a very checkered history that has a engine that got an even checkered after being well warned about both by many on here , still buy it without looking into any problem or at the very less get the engine checked out ,
just because the word reconditioned was used in the listing , keep it a year , partly under a tarpaulin, then remove what was a perfect good running engine which he have had no problem with other then the alternators and a rusty looking started , because of some rusty on the turbo blades, all this on the say of one so call engineer , (in my view any good engineer would do some test on the engine before advise it to be removed) , to see if I deed work has been done on the engine , with a view he may have a case to recover his losses .
In the OP own words " the engine was the cleaners part of the boat and looked lovely and painted "

I wonder how most would react if after a year of selling a boat the guy inform you he going to sue you because he found some thing wrong with the boat .
Or worst he removed a good working engine in case there something wrong .

Even if after Dave get his report on the engine there still be no evidence that any fault found wasn't cause while in his ownership , so which ever way you look at it , he hasn't got a chance of winner any case .

It's a shame he didn't post here first before removing it , most lightly he would had been told to have at less a compression test before pulling it out .
Could had saved him a lot of stress and money .

If you start off from a negative point of view of course you are going to conclude there is no case.

However in this case there are a lot of positives. Firstly there was potentially clear misrepresentation IF the strip down reveals that there has been no work done that could justify the term "reconditioned". The time delay is irrelevant IF he can prove the engine has not been used in the meantime. There is (from what the OP has said) a clear case that his decision to buy was strongly influenced by the claim that the engine had been through a process that would ensure that it was sound. Remember the boat has lots of problems, and the price he paid is irrelevant - he only needs to show that he would have paid even less if the engine was questionable or not bought the boat at all.

The discussion here about the definition of the term only illustrates the process the court would go through IF the definition used is stated in the claim. This is easy to do as a number of us have pointed out - ordinary meaning of the word in this context referenced back to dictionary definitions and definitions used by trade associations and other businesses engaged in this line of work. Again remember that the claim is for misrepresentation, NOT whether the reconditioning process was of an appropriate standard.

The only real questions now are whether the engineer's report can justify the claim that it has not been reconditioned within the ordinary meaning of the word, and whether the financial loss suffered is sufficient to justify the potential work required to make the claim and pursue it through the courts.

Most of the comments from those saying he does not have a chance are those the vendor will try to use, and doubtless in the initial stages he will either ignore it or refuse to settle by providing evidence that what he claimed was true. If he rejects negotiation or arbitration presenting the claim to Small Claims track is a low cost action.

 

[lw395]

But bear in mind even small claims is not zero risk.
Even if it is accepted for the small claims track. Given that the value of the whole deal was somewhat over £10k.
I think the OP ought to get actual legal advice before going any further.

 

[Tranona]

But bear in mind even small claims is not zero risk.
Even if it is accepted for the small claims track. Given that the value of the whole deal was somewhat over £10k.
I think the OP ought to get actual legal advice before going any further.

Yes it is a risk, mainly because even if he is successful he still has to enforce his claim.

Unlikely to exceed £10k. He will only be able to claim the cost of doing the work necessary to justify the claim of "reconditioned" - which will be as much a matter of opinion and how he presents his case. He will not be able to reject the boat as a whole. Even if he were bringing this under CRA (if he had bought from a trader) the vendor would only have to repair the engine.

 

[sailaboutvic]

If you start off from a negative point of view of course you are going to conclude there is no case.

However in this case there are a lot of positives. Firstly there was potentially clear misrepresentation IF the strip down reveals that there has been no work done that could justify the term "reconditioned". The time delay is irrelevant IF he can prove the engine has not been used in the meantime. There is (from what the OP has said) a clear case that his decision to buy was strongly influenced by the claim that the engine had been through a process that would ensure that it was sound. Remember the boat has lots of problems, and the price he paid is irrelevant - he only needs to show that he would have paid even less if the engine was questionable or not bought the boat at all.

The discussion here about the definition of the term only illustrates the process the court would go through IF the definition used is stated in the claim. This is easy to do as a number of us have pointed out - ordinary meaning of the word in this context referenced back to dictionary definitions and definitions used by trade associations and other businesses engaged in this line of work. Again remember that the claim is for misrepresentation, NOT whether the reconditioning process was of an appropriate standard.

The only real questions now are whether the engineer's report can justify the claim that it has not been reconditioned within the ordinary meaning of the word, and whether the financial loss suffered is sufficient to justify the potential work required to make the claim and pursue it through the courts.

Most of the comments from those saying he does not have a chance are those the vendor will try to use, and doubtless in the initial stages he will either ignore it or refuse to settle by providing evidence that what he claimed was true. If he rejects negotiation or arbitration presenting the claim to Small Claims track is a low cost action.

Let say any report is in his favour and just minor work has been done for argument stake ,
The PO can prove that his paid Mr blog to recon the engine ,
There no case for misrepresentation, the PO in good faith sold his boat believing the engine had been reconditioned.
Unless the PO him self was a engineer or even if he was unless he was standing over Mr Blog he wouldn't be any wiser .
Once again especially as the OP agree the engine was fine and working how it should .
The contract would had been between the PO and Mr blog once again the OP has no case .
There lots of ifs
and we still no wiser if there is anything wrong with the engine , especially as the OP said it was working fine other then the alternator and a rusty starter motor.
Very strange .

The other point is that the time delay is very relevant , say his report find that the rings are broken or the shaft is scored , what to say it wasn't done while the PO had it in his ownership , just a short run without oil will kill a engine .

Here a good example , two year ago I give a sail drive shaft that was scored where the seals rubbed , to be regrounded and bushes ,
It came back looking great lucky I knew what to look for instead of bushing it the engineering shop just put it into a lathe and must ran Emery cloth over it or turned it down a mil making it look like new in fact he made it worst .
I could had sold that boat with the wording that the bottom end has been reconditioned ,
As far as I knew I had as it had new seals and bearing .
Did I misrepresent the sail drive ?

 

[Tranona]

Let say any report is in his favour and just minor work has been done for argument stake ,
The PO can prove that his paid Mr blog to recon the engine ,
There no case for misrepresentation, the PO in good faith sold his boat believing the engine had been reconditioned.
Unless the PO him self was a engineer or even if he was unless he was standing over Mr Blog he wouldn't be any wiser .
Once again especially as the OP agree the engine was fine and working how it should .
The contract would had been between the PO and Mr blog once again the OP has no case .
There lots of ifs
and we still no wiser if there is anything wrong with the engine , especially as the OP said it was working fine other then the alternator and a rusty starter motor.
Very strange .

We don't know that a Mr Blog even exists.

The vendor will have to present evidence to counter the opinion of a respected engineer who works for one of the biggest Yanmar dealers in the country. At least an invoice detailing the work carried out and a schedule of parts replaced then results of any tests carried out on completion.

You keep on looking at it from a negative point of view. The OP will present his claim in a way that puts him in the right, and the the vendor has to challenge the claim with better evidence. The history suggests he will not be in a position to do this.

The contract between the vendor and Mr Blog (if he even exists) is irrelevant. This is a case of misrepresentation by the vendor (and possibly the broker) as it is they who made the claim that the engine had been "reconditioned" - and did it voluntarily, not even as a result of the buyer asking the question! Why would they make the claim unless they thought it would encourage somebody to buy or pay a higher price?

 

[lw395]

I'm not a lawyer, but AIUI, so long as the seller honestly believed what had been done to the engine constituted 'reconditioned', then he hasn't misrepresented the facts 'as he understood them'.
The seller isn't an expert. He isn't required to be.
The normal remedy for a misrepresentation seems to be recission of the contract. That takes it well out small claims league. So the vendor will probably have representation and the costs will be significant.
Let's face it, if you or I were the vendor and we received notice of a small claims action like this, we'd get legal advice.
Also if any expert witness is needed, the court needs to be involved in their appointment and that will get costly.

 

[lw395]

Yes it is a risk, mainly because even if he is successful he still has to enforce his claim.

Unlikely to exceed £10k. He will only be able to claim the cost of doing the work necessary to justify the claim of "reconditioned" - which will be as much a matter of opinion and how he presents his case. He will not be able to reject the boat as a whole. Even if he were bringing this under CRA (if he had bought from a trader) the vendor would only have to repair the engine.

So repair is the same as recondition then?