Reconditioned a legal term?

[jonjo7]

We both think that "reconditioned" should mean more than a quick repair, but that's just our opinions, they mean nothing in the real World. The FER also think that the term "reconditioned" should have a clearly defined, legal definition. They have been trying to get that definition for decades, without success.

It must mean something otherwise marine engineers and yacht brokers would not use the term.

Your own position is a source of confusion, one day you claim the OP's flushed engine can be legitimately described as reconditioned, now a few days later I think you are saying it is a worthless term without meaning.

 

[Tranona]

No, it's you that misses, or rather refuses to accept, the point.

You keep banging on about "basic definition", whose basic definition ?

We both think that "reconditioned" should mean more than a quick repair, but that's just our opinions, they mean nothing in the real World. The FER also think that the term "reconditioned" should have a clearly defined, legal definition. They have been trying to get that definition for decades, without success.

You again mention "basic dictionary definition". I posted several of those, and i wasn't being selective, they were amongst the first few that came up in a Goggle search. Those definitions include :



Those definitions don't require specific works to be carried out, but suggest that it's the end result that would classify an engine as reconditioned, rather than the work carried out, as suggested way back in post #10.

All you are doing is confirming the point that I have made. IF there is no evidence that anything has been done then the term reconditioned is not justified as all the definitions quoted require some work, repairs, replacements. It is not about how much or what specifics have been done. We know the starter and alternator have not had anything done, nor the gearbox (although that is irrelevant in a way as there was no claim that was reconditioned). We now hear that the bell housing was full of water - no way that could have happened during the current owner's time and there are problems with the turbo. More will be revealed in the strip down. The only evidence that anything was done at all seems to be the removal, painting and refitting of the engine which does not justify the term used. The engine has not proved satisfactory as after only 10 hours running further faults have been found that should not have happened if the work had been done as claimed.

You are right in constructing a defence as the OP needs to be aware of what might be used to counter his claim. He needs, if he is going to pursue this (as I have said many times) to construct his case in a way that sets out his expectations when he relied on the statement in such a way that heads of as many of the counter arguments as possible. Many Small Claims are not defended or defended badly. He will have a big advantage by setting his case out well and giving the vendor every chance to settle the matter before it goes to court. It is all about being seen as the good guy with a genuine grievance who has done everything he can to resolve the matter himself.

 

[PaulRainbow]

It must mean something otherwise marine engineers and yacht brokers would not use the term.

Your own position is a source of confusion, one day you claim the OP's flushed engine can be legitimately described as reconditioned, now a few days later I think you are saying it is a worthless term without meaning.

If you read what i wrote, in the context it was written at the time, it should be clear.

At the time i learned about engine fixing "reconditioned" generally meant what is now usually referred to as "re-manufactured". I still think of it that way, although the term seems to have changed with modern usage. It now seems to mean more like "repaired".

As it has no clear "definition", it is, on it's own, a meaningless term. Without detailing the work that was carried out and the parts that were replaced calling an engine "reconditioned" means nothing.

An engine that has been flooded wouldn't usually need re-manufacturing, it needs repairing, fixing, returning to good working order. What that actually entails will vary depending on the engine, the extent of the flooding, how long it was left etc. No two jobs will be exactly the same, which is probably why the term "reconditioned" has no exact definition. Obviously, during the course of fixing a flooded engine other issues might be brought to light and it might also be prudent to put right or otherwise improve other areas, that may not have come to light were it not for the examination brought about by the flooding.

For instance, if you had to remove the cylinder head, it might be a good idea to lap the valves in and replace the stem seals. But if the engine was fairly new, this could be a waste of time and money.

I have commented, more than once, that the PO might say the engine has been "reconditioned" because he considers that, given the dictionary terms i posted early, draining, cleaning, painting etc constitutes "reconditioning" in the case of his flooding.

When i do any work on an engine, whether it be repairs or servicing, i always fully document the work that was carried out and all parts used, i do not use words like "reconditioned". This way the customer knows exactly what has been done. If/when he comes to sell the boat he has documentation to show the engines service and repair history.

 

[PaulRainbow]

All you are doing is confirming the point that I have made. IF there is no evidence that anything has been done then the term reconditioned is not justified as all the definitions quoted require some work, repairs, replacements. It is not about how much or what specifics have been done.

Of course, if absolutely nothing was done the PO can't say it was reconditioned, he can't even say that it was repaired. But for a simple flooding, dealt with promptly, there should be no need to replace engine components. Darin, flush, service, etc and paint would constitute a repair and in the context of those dictionary definitions even "reconditioned".

We know the starter and alternator have not had anything done, nor the gearbox (although that is irrelevant in a way as there was no claim that was reconditioned).

Shame that information was not provided earlier. The external ancilliary equipment was always going to be the most likely to suffer and they should have all been dealt with properly. The fact that they weren't is a concern.

The gearbox would have been doubly in trouble, as it was flooded before the engine was replaced with the Yanmar.

We now hear that the bell housing was full of water - no way that could have happened during the current owner's time

I disagree. I can't see how this could have happened before the OP bought the boat. Unlikely that water could have been in there for the trip home and hard to see how it wold have stayed in there whilst the gearbox was changed.

and there are problems with the turbo.

Are there ? The OP says the turbine is rusty, bit odd as it's made from alloy.

More will be revealed in the strip down. The only evidence that anything was done at all seems to be the removal, painting and refitting of the engine which does not justify the term used. The engine has not proved satisfactory as after only 10 hours running further faults have been found that should not have happened if the work had been done as claimed.

I look forward to reading the report from French Marine and hope it goes well for the OP. Not only do we not know the condition of the engine, we also don't even know the extent of the flooding.

 

[duncan99210]

Just a point on the misrepresentation topic. The wording below is lifted from a brokers website: it effectively says confirm everything we're telling you about this boat, as we will not accept any responsibility for any faults you find later on. So that lets the brokers off the hook.

"Disclaimer and Travelling to Inspect
The Company offers the details of this vessel in good faith, in this case we are acting as Brokers only. Whilst every care has been taken in their preparation, the correctness of these particulars is not guaranteed. The particulars are intended only as a guide and they do not constitute a term of any contract. A prospective buyer is strongly advised to check the particulars and where appropriate at his own expense to employ a qualified Marine Surveyor to carry out a survey and/or to have an engine trial conducted which if conducted by us shall not imply any liability for such engine on our part. This vessel is offered subject to prior sale, price change, or withdrawal without notice."

I'd also suggest that unless the sale contract contained a specific mention of a reconditioned engine, including what works had (or had not been done) then there is little of legal value to be obtained from the brokers or sellers descriptions of a 'reconditioned' engine, as the OPs recollection of the seller's description will be a case of "he said, I said" and the brokers will just point to their disclaimer and shrug their shoulders.
This is all about a boat that was sunk at least once and was bought by the OP for a low price as a fixer up, sold as seen. Time now to get it fixed, get the boat finished and go sailing.

 

[Malabarista]

I except on the wording that was used ( if so ) “ reconditioned engine” Dave may be able to bring a case against the PO or the broker ,
Of cause he has to prove .

A , some thing in writing that describe this and unless he has the listing or a copy of the advertisement he would have a problem if it is denied in court , accepting that anything said between two party's is part of a contract but proving it is another thing .

B a report that the engine wasn't strip and work wasn't done to warrant the word reconditioned being use .

At the same time magistrate are human being and if the engine is found to be in good working order and some work has been done ,
He may consider that to remove a perfect working engine one year on , just to have it check if indeed any work has been done was excessive and done for the reason on the sole purpose to try and bring a court Acton , Wasting the court time and could turn the case against him .
Magistrate are unpredictable.
And even by any chance he wins the case , for innocent misrepresentation if indeed the PO can proven he paid to have the engine reconditioned , the cost awarded could be so little that he could still be out of pocket with a engine that was once in perfect working order now in bits .
Lastly although in the end of the day he does win and some cost are award recover them cost could be another matter , which may involve another court case , bailiff.
If the PO when to all the trouble to remove a engine to paint it given the impression that work was done to the engine , he would be most likely be the type to avoid paying any order unless he have to .

We can play on words how much we like it's not costing us any thing ,
but one have to consider advising Dave to bring an Acton against the PO on the evidence which we have and what the out come may be if he wins is good advise .
He may win the fight but still lose the battle.
Has I said before good luck Dave , if I was you I get on with refitting the boat and getting it ready .

Just taking a break mate. Busy sanding the engine bay ready for painting. Although i agree that removing the engine may have been overkill or unnecessary in some folks eyes i made the decision to do it without any thought in my head of legal action. I know this is impossible to prove either way but it’s true. My overriding concern was to be able to trust the engine and if it could not be brought into a state where it could be trusted then to replace it. Thanks for your wise comments

 

[Tranona]

I'd also suggest that unless the sale contract contained a specific mention of a reconditioned engine, including what works had (or had not been done) then there is little of legal value to be obtained from the brokers or sellers descriptions of a 'reconditioned' engine, as the OPs recollection of the seller's description will be a case of "he said, I said" and the brokers will just point to their disclaimer and shrug their shoulders.
This is all about a boat that was sunk at least once and was bought by the OP for a low price as a fixer up, sold as seen. Time now to get it fixed, get the boat finished and go sailing.

You are right that brokers limit their liability but this is a very specific claim that is material - and if not true is misrepresentation, at least on the part of the vendor who provided the description. The fact that the buyer paid a low price and there were other problems with the boat is irrelevant. He will argue that if the engine was not reconditioned he would have offered even less or not offered at all.

 

[sailaboutvic]

Just taking a break mate. Busy sanding the engine bay ready for painting. Although i agree that removing the engine may have been overkill or unnecessary in some folks eyes i made the decision to do it without any thought in my head of legal action. I know this is impossible to prove either way but it’s true. My overriding concern was to be able to trust the engine and if it could not be brought into a state where it could be trusted then to replace it. Thanks for your wise comments

What you do next is up to you . One thing I wouldn't do is try and fight a court case on a word as some have suggested .
We are near the end of our refit ,
has full time liveaboard we do major work in the winter and small jobs in the summer , 18k down the line and we near the end or hopefully we will be come the end of this winter , althought there always some thing to do .
What would I do in your shoes ? .

Now the engine out I would get it checked out and do what ever need to be done , you done the hardest bit pulling it out , now for the costly part putting it all back ,
While it's out there your chance to complete any work need doing on the engine bay .
Once you get it back , put it back in , put all this stuff to experience and more on to the next job .

The MOA is a good place I understand for info , I not a member , has you seen to know very little it might be worth your while joining .

The 44 and the 42 Althought not the same boat are similar in lots of ways , if you come across a problem or something you can't work out for your self , PM me I be happy to give you any info I came across .
We taken our Moody apart from top to bottom .
I now going to leave this thread , I think enough said .

 

[lw395]

///// My overriding concern was to be able to trust the engine and if it could not be brought into a state where it could be trusted then to replace it. ,,,,,,

It seems to me you know the basic engine seemed to work OK last year?
so if you have the sump and rocker cover off, you should be able to get a view on its general condition.
See the bottoms of the bores. Feel if the big ends are horribly slack.
Find out what your mechanic saw that made him so pessimistic about the engine.
Also do things like measure valve clearances. If these are not wildly out it's a nother good sign.

 

[Malabarista]

ok so here is the preliminary report from French Marine.
1. Engine mounts. the rubber has become unbonded (sic) from the steel parts all four (photos supplied)
2. With the injectors removed we have put a small video camera into each bore and can see rust marks on the surface of all cylinders.
3. We have carried out a compression test on all four cylinders. From new the compression in each cylinder should have been 428psi. If the engine is in good condition we are looking for something close to this figure and there should not be a difference of more than 10% between all cylinders. the readings we got are;
Cylinder no. 1 = 375psi. this is more than 10% lower than the highest reading. we have checked this 2-3 times and it does not get any better.
Cylinders no. 2= 360psi. Also checked 2-3 times
Cylinder no. 3= 420psi. This is a figure we would expect and be happy with for an older used engine.
Cylinder no. 4= 420psi.

Cylinders 1&2. Four possible causes of low readings
a) The piston heights could be incorrect. This could be if water got into the cylinders and wasn't removed fully from the engine before trying to start it. You will try to compress water, which won't happen and the weak point is the connecting rods which bend and then make it short reducing the piston height and compression pressure.
b) Stuck piston rings, through sitting after submersion and not attended to during the refurbishment.
c) Valves not sealing in the cylinder head. Could be pitted, corroded or burnt away.
d) Glazed bores through general wear and tear.

4. There is no charging output from the alternator. Probably cheaper to replace with a pattern unit rather than repair.
5. We have been using your starter motor to turn the engine and have found that it works every time for us. The problem may be with the boats wiring/bad earth/ battery switch. having said that the case is not in great condition with serious corrosion to the aluminium anchorage lugs holding the unit together. These could fail in use leaving you without a working starter. this could do with being replaced.
6. The engine wiring harness is not in great condition with wires having been cut and corroded terminals in the plugs.
7. The turbo will need to be removed for checking/ overhauling due to the signs of rust internally. we don't know the cost of this as they all come back with a different cost depending on what is found to be wrong.
8. there is various amounts of corrosion to the outside of the engine that have not been cleaned/treated properly since a submersion to try and halt their progression.
9. The turbo oil return pipe is steel and is severely corroded. this needs a serious clean to check that it not at the point of perforation. If this fails all oil will end up in the bilge. The rubber pipe / jumper connecting this to the sump is not looking good either and will need to be replaced.

Conclusion.
This is only an initial look without going into to too much depth and we have already come up with quite a list of faults/possible faults. The engine is still showing visible signs of damage from the submersion both internally and externally. It is a job to say whether this engine has been refurbished and looking at the state of the rust/corrosion if it was supposedly attended to in 2016 we wouldn't expect it to be at this level of corrosion within 12 months. Also we question what did they check? Things like the mounts are obviously gone which was easy to see when removed and inspected.
Moving forward if you wanted this engine investigating further then we would suggest removing the cylinder heads to so that we can check piston heights, inspect the cylinder bores and subject to what we find strip the cylinder head to inspect the valves. we could then formulate a plan to from there to move forward again to make a final repair. What we can't tell you at the moment is whether it will be economically viable to repair this engine against the cost of a replacement. Any labour spent on getting this to the point of quoting the full repair cost would have to be paid regardless of whether the rebuild goes ahead or not.
labour to date to carry out inspection without major strip down £168

He then goes on to list the parts needed as known this far which is around £1630
He estimates that the labour cost to strip it further as described is £224
to quote again:
" it looks as though you could easily head towards £5-£6K +vat to do a rebuild on this old engine" whereas a "reconditioned" (that bloody word again)
engine of the same type ready to fit with all ancillaries would cost around £6300 incl.
so...... ignoring the fact that I don't actually have a spare £6K to either buy or rebuild at the moment.....is it worth getting the extra strip down done?

 

[Poecheng]

And we are off again.......:encouragement:

1. The four possible causes of lack of compression in cylinders 1 & 2 do not seem to be attributable to the OP and do (each) seem to be matters to be attended to in a reconditioning so that the symptom is not present. It is difficult to describe an engine as reconditioned when half its cylinders have low compression.

2. The engine mounts - if not replaced during the reconditioning then they should still be checked to be good; failure of all four in this timescale is not feasible if they had been properly checked/replaced.

3. Corroded oil pipe - just waiting to be fatal. Could it have reached that condition in the OP's ownership and yet have been in good condition when reconditioned?

4. Turbo. Well I think someone said it couldnt have rust :encouragement:.

Need to get French's to identify whether, in their view, this engine has been broken down before or whether it has remained in one piece - an engineer will know the subtle signs.

 

[PaulRainbow]

4. Turbo. Well I think someone said it couldnt have rust :encouragement:.

You think correctly, well done. I said the turbine could not be rusty as it is made from alloy. If you know of a condition that causes ally to rust, please share it.

 

[Poecheng]

You think correctly, well done. I said the turbine could not be rusty as it is made from alloy. If you know of a condition that causes ally to rust, please share it.

Just a gentle rib:encouragement:
I didn't name anyone: it reminds me of a scene in Bakersfield PD (American police comedy) where, on the ID Parade, the suspect picked out the victim.

 

[PaulRainbow]

He then goes on to list the parts needed as known this far which is around £1630
He estimates that the labour cost to strip it further as described is £224
to quote again:
" it looks as though you could easily head towards £5-£6K +vat to do a rebuild on this old engine" whereas a "reconditioned" (that bloody word again)
engine of the same type ready to fit with all ancillaries would cost around £6300 incl.
so...... ignoring the fact that I don't actually have a spare £6K to either buy or rebuild at the moment.....is it worth getting the extra strip down done?

It's clear that the external components were not dealt with, starter, alternator etc and we already know the gearbox wasn't done properly, if at all. Some of these things should have been picked up in the survey, IMO.

Anyway, to answer your question... the figures don't make too much sense. If it needs £1630 in parts, i don't see how it can come to £5-£6k + VAT (up to £7200) that's a lot of labour. Plus, if a "recon" engine is only 6300 how can fixing your come to £900 more ?

 

[lw395]

And we are off again.......:encouragement:

1. The four possible causes of lack of compression in cylinders 1 & 2 do not seem to be attributable to the OP and do (each) seem to be matters to be attended to in a reconditioning so that the symptom is not present. It is difficult to describe an engine as reconditioned when half its cylinders have low compression.

2. The engine mounts - if not replaced during the reconditioning then they should still be checked to be good; failure of all four in this timescale is not feasible if they had been properly checked/replaced.

3. Corroded oil pipe - just waiting to be fatal. Could it have reached that condition in the OP's ownership and yet have been in good condition when reconditioned?

4. Turbo. Well I think someone said it couldnt have rust :encouragement:.

Need to get French's to identify whether, in their view, this engine has been broken down before or whether it has remained in one piece - an engineer will know the subtle signs.

Visible rust in the bores?
I'd expect that to be pretty much scoured away by the ten hours or whatever that the OP had the engine running. It should have looked quite different to rust which has occurred since. Which is quite likely to happen in an engine which is idle for a year and not in a nice cosy shed. Likewise the turbo.

The compression might sort itself out with a few hours running. Or it might go completely bad. It could just be a bit of rust on the valves/seats. Typical of an engine that's been idle.
The oil pipe, they all do that, Sir.

Failed engine mounts, I'd have thought they'd have been noticed last time the engine came out.

I'd say this exercise has done just enough to make it quite hard to tell what damage was there at sale and what's deteriorated in the past year.

Moving forwards, if a recon engine is £6k, buy new, even if you have to borrow the money.

 

[PaulRainbow]

3 Choices

1) New engine. £12k. Lot of money.

2) Recon engine £6k. What's "recon" ? How will this be better than rebuilding the current engine, assuming the current engine is rebuilt correctly ?

3) Rebuild current engine. Worse case scenario, regrind crank, new shells, rebore, new pistons and rings, rebuild head, new oil and water pump, recal injector pump and injectors, all new gaskets and seals. New starter and alternator, overhaul turbo, tidy the wiring, clean and paint the engine.

This will be as good as the recon, or better. Has the recon had all of this work ? Does it have a new starter and alternator ? (I guess no) Was the turbo overhauled ? Were the injector pump and injectors done ?

If we rule out the new engine, due to price, that leaves a hard choice between buying the recon or rebuilding the current engine. On the face of it, it's a hard choice (financially).

The things i cannot get my head around are ;

a) How can they recon their engine and sell it for £6k, when it's going to cost up to £7200 to rebuild someone elses engine ? They haven't got to supply the base engine, or the gearbox.

b) If the parts are £1630, how can it come to £5-£6k to rebuild ? Hoe the hell can there be £3370-£4370 in labour to rebuild an engine ? All of those plus VAT. If there is between £4k and £5k just in labour (with the VAT), how could they recon their own base engine and sell it for £6k, including an engine.

My conclusion, those figures don't stack up. They are talking bollox about the cost to rebuild the existing engine. Typical labour rate around here is £50 per hour, that's 80 hours of labour to get to their price, ridiculous.

Be interesting to see a detailed spec for the recon.

 

[Mr Cassandra]

3 Choices

1) New engine. £12k. Lot of money.

2) Recon engine £6k. What's "recon" ? How will this be better than rebuilding the current engine, assuming the current engine is rebuilt correctly ?

3) Rebuild current engine. Worse case scenario, regrind crank, new shells, rebore, new pistons and rings, rebuild head, new oil and water pump, recal injector pump and injectors, all new gaskets and seals. New starter and alternator, overhaul turbo, tidy the wiring, clean and paint the engine.

This will be as good as the recon, or better. Has the recon had all of this work ? Does it have a new starter and alternator ? (I guess no) Was the turbo overhauled ? Were the injector pump and injectors done ?

If we rule out the new engine, due to price, that leaves a hard choice between buying the recon or rebuilding the current engine. On the face of it, it's a hard choice (financially).

The things i cannot get my head around are ;

a) How can they recon their engine and sell it for £6k, when it's going to cost up to £7200 to rebuild someone elses engine ? They haven't got to supply the base engine, or the gearbox.

b) If the parts are £1630, how can it come to £5-£6k to rebuild ? Hoe the hell can there be £3370-£4370 in labour to rebuild an engine ? All of those plus VAT. If there is between £4k and £5k just in labour (with the VAT), how could they recon their own base engine and sell it for £6k, including an engine.

My conclusion, those figures don't stack up. They are talking bollox about the cost to rebuild the existing engine. Typical labour rate around here is £50 per hour, that's 80 hours of labour to get to their price, ridiculous.

Be interesting to see a detailed spec for the recon.

From reading the whole thread, if I needed any work done on an engine ,you would be on the top of my list.

 

[lw395]

12k for a new engine will increase the saleability of the boat, if not the value.
6k for a rebuild or a recon gets you something that's as good as the people who do the work, but it's hard to find a yacht engine repairer that nobody has a bad word for.
If I was to buy another boat, I'd much rather have an engine that was new a couple of years ago than one that was 'rebuilt' a couple of years ago.
So bearing in mind the risks and warranties, the extra £6k for a whole new motor starts to look more reasonable.
As to where does the money go, I'd imagine a lot of time is spent 'making things happen' as well as actual spannering.
Personally, I'd DIY it.

What happened to Tinkicker?

 

[Tranona]

12k for a new engine will increase the saleability of the boat, if not the value.
6k for a rebuild or a recon gets you something that's as good as the people who do the work, but it's hard to find a yacht engine repairer that nobody has a bad word for.
If I was to buy another boat, I'd much rather have an engine that was new a couple of years ago than one that was 'rebuilt' a couple of years ago.
So bearing in mind the risks and warranties, the extra £6k for a whole new motor starts to look more reasonable.
As to where does the money go, I'd imagine a lot of time is spent 'making things happen' as well as actual spannering.
Personally, I'd DIY it.

What happened to Tinkicker?

Not sure the OP is interested in resale value. The boat is a project intended for long term ownership. He has stated many times that he just wants a reliable engine, but has limited funds. Rebuilding the existing engine is probably the least worst alternative.

 

[sailaboutvic]

Not sure the OP is interested in resale value. The boat is a project intended for long term ownership. He has stated many times that he just wants a reliable engine, but has limited funds. Rebuilding the existing engine is probably the least worst alternative.

I agree , it sound As if Dave can do some of the DIY jobs , now the engine out , I be temped to pay Frenches for there work , take the engine away , remove the parts That need to be removed including the head and find a good machine shop
Do a full recon , I lay money , it will be nothing like what frenchs quoted .
It mean Dave would have to put some work into it him self .

Or his other option , the one I would closely look at is get the engine back home and remove the head , have a check of the bores is no signs of damages scores or piston distorting and get and engineering shop to recon the head , most lightly the lost in compression is in the valve , if they found nothing wrong with the head then go for a block full recon