Seller withdraws after accepting offer

I concede that I haven't read all of the previous comments, however unless you want to spend all of the money that you were planning to spend on a boat, on lawyers instead ...it's best to give the broker a 'shove' to see what, if anything they can do, and if that fails then I'm afraid my advice would be to move on.

Again, I haven't read through all eight pages of comments (sorry); did you pay for a survey? If so, I'd be tempted to see what the broker can do to help with that ...as surely you've been led up the garden path a little by their sales operation.

Don't sue; even if you win you will lose in other ways (your time, your sleep, your mind). Remember why you're buying a boat in the first place. It's for leisure and relaxation ...not to spend your free time in court.

Win or lose, you don't get time and energy lost in court back!
 
yodave said:
I concede that I haven't read all of the previous comments,
Click to expand...

If you had rerad a fraction of the previous posts you would know that there never was a meaningful contract - just an agreement over the phone and the the seller backing out the next day. So ost of your observations, correct though they are if there had been a proper contract are not relevant.
 
TQA said:
Wow there is a lot of incorrect info being posted on this thread.
Click to expand...
As you chose to use my post to accuse of misinformation let me reply.
The experiences you may have had at the hands of the legal profession and courts can only bolster my opinion (and most other posters on this thread) that legal remedies will cost money (to lawyers) and result in a possible moral victory (but probably not), yet probably a hefty financial loss in prosecuting the claim. I cannot see how a court would award costs to a claimant who is claiming.....nothing, but hurt pride.

That can in no way be described as successful.
As I said "going to court will not get him satisfaction"
If losing a shed full of money to lawyers is satisfaction, then you would have a point, but in my view going legal on the matter should be about correcting a loss. Which there hasn't been.

There is no way that the ex-vendor is going to give up his boat because someone said he had agreed to. That is not a real-world scenario.
 
Tranona said:
Yes, and you are just adding to the list.

Unless there is a good record of the verbal contract including all the terms and conditions that the plaintiff is going to rely on, then the courts will assume that the contract is one that is normal for that type of transaction. That would not cover any of the damages you suggest might be claimed in breach.

Remember from what the OP says a price was agreed verbally and the next day the seller changed his mind. No deposit, no completion date, no terms and conditions and so on. How could anybody justify any loss that might have occured in 24 hours of agreeing a price?

If what you say is right, nobody would ever buy or sell anything. That is also why any deal that is agreed needs to be in the form of a written contract so that both parties know exactly what they have agreed to and what the consequences are following a breach.

So, I doubt on the basis of a phone conversation agreeing a price in a transaction where there is a well establihed contract process, that any form of binding contract has been established, nor would the "breach" as described have resulted in any quantifiable or forseeable loss.
Click to expand...

Tranona,

I have a great deal of respect for most of what you post on this forum, but in this case you are plain wrong. The disappointed buyer would be entitled to recover all foreseeable losses. Additional reasonable costs incurred in continuing the search for a boat, difference in price between this and a similar boat, loss of use for several weeks or months - these are all foreseeable and the vendor would, as a matter of law, be entitled to recover them unless they were excluded by contract. They do not specifically need to be included in the contract to be recoverable.

The principle is that the innocent party should be put back in the same position he were in if the contract had not been broken. It doesn't matter if the repudiation occurred 24 hours or 2 minutes after the contract was made.

Incidentally, because this is a repudiation of a contract, specific rules apply. The buyer could choose to insist on performance (although the court might not ultimately grant that), or accept the breach and claim damages.

That is the legal position. I am 100% sure it is correct. PM me if you don't believe me and I'll be happy to convince you. What it really comes down to is "Is it worth it to pursue this through the courts?" I suspect probably not.
 
Tranona: Fair enough ...yes I was short of time and I hadn't read the earlier comments in this thread.

In my (feeble) defence I did state that I hadn't read the previous comments. Typically, I try to read through all comments before posting, but with bed looking more and more inviting I still had other things to do last night; nonetheless I wanted to make a contribution of some sort.

Apologies.
 
Hi Lakesailor I was not having a go at you more the thread. The OP
asked

"Please can anyone advise me what rights (if any) I have in the following situation?

Negotiating through a broker, a seller verbally accepted my offer on his boat only to withdraw it from sale the following day stating that his wife had decided they wanted to keep the boat. The withdrawal was reported to the broker before I had a chance to pay the deposit. "

A contract existed.

If it is breached by one side then the other has rights/remedies at law. I detailed those.

I fully agree that it might not be worth while going to law but if the OP is sufficiently aggrieved then it is his right to do and if he can prove the contract then he should win damages which might indeed be nominal.

bbg summed it up nicely too.
 
TQA said:
bbg summed it up nicely too.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you and bbg are taking the idea that a contract existed too literally.

It is correct if there was a contract between the two parties and the vendor was in breach of the terms and conditions of the contract then the buyer would be able to claim damages within the terms of the contract for anything that is both forseeable and material. So if the buyer had paid for a lift and survey he could claim for this. There is actually very little else in a "normal" private boat purchase contract that could be claimed - certainly not the fanciful things such as loss of amenity or even costs related to buying an alternative boat. If those potential costs were implicit in agreeing verbally to sell somebody a boat, nobody would ever do it. The contract becomes binding when both parties have signed it and agreed to it, and in this case it had not happened.

Then in this instance (of the OPs case) you would need to look at whether a contract actually existed. Simply agreeing to buy at a certain price over the phone is not really a contract in a transaction as complex as buying a boat where both people have to explicitly agree to the terms and conditions and there is a defined process where both have to do things to fulfil their side. How can this possibly happen in a phone conversation? However you could argue, as would the court, what would a standard contract, normal for this type of transaction look like? It would be the model YDSA, RYA or similar. Within that sort of contract, the paragraph above would apply. The buyer has suffered no forseeable or material loss as a result of the vendor changing his mind. Similarly the broker probably has no claim as his contract will require commission on completion of the sale, not just on finding a willing buyer. He may have a claim under some other part of the contract, for example he might have a charge for listing, or to claim a portion of the commission if the vendor sells the boat elsewere while the contract is still in place.

These things happen all the time when private individuals are buying and selling property. If a verbal agreement over the phone gave rise to legitimate claims for compensation if one party changes their mind nothing would ever get done. Think of it the other way round, if the buyer changed his mind the next day and phoned to say his wife had given him stick and he can't buy the boat. Would that entitle the vendor to force the purchase or claim for the cost of preparing the boat, advertising it, buying the new car he was going to buy with the proceeds and so on?

Get real!
 
Tranona said:
The contract becomes binding when both parties have signed it and agreed to it, and in this case it had not happened.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that's wrong. With very few exceptions, there is no requirement for contracts to be in writing under English law. Selling a boat is NOT one of the exceptions. As long as there was offer and acceptance, there was a contract.

Tranona said:
Then in this instance (of the OPs case) you would need to look at whether a contract actually existed. Simply agreeing to buy at a certain price over the phone is not really a contract in a transaction as complex as buying a boat where both people have to explicitly agree to the terms and conditions and there is a defined process where both have to do things to fulfil their side.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. The parties do not have to agree anything more explicitly. They can if they want to, but in principle buying and selling a boat is no more complex than buying and selling a toothbrush. The key terms are: 1. object of the sale (which seems to have been clarified); 2. price. The only other REALLY key one I can think of is delivery date. If it weren't explicitly agreed, a court would say it has to be "within a reasonable time".

Tranona said:
The buyer has suffered no forseeable or material loss as a result of the vendor changing his mind.
Click to expand...
In this case we don't know whether he has suffered the kinds of losses I have mentioned in previous posts. But the fact that I can think of them (and indeed that they could potentially apply to every repudiated sale) means they are, by definition, foreseeable.

Tranona said:
These things happen all the time when private individuals are buying and selling property.
Click to expand...
Buying and selling real property is one of the exceptions. Since the Statute of Frauds in 1677, contracts for the sale of real property (real estate) need to be in writing to be enforceable. The Statute of Frauds didn't mention AWBs.
 
boring.png
 
OP Response.....

Thanks for all(!!!) your responses.

I have done as most have suggested and reconciled myself to the situation. Disappointed, but I have accepted it for what it is.

For the record, it was never my intention to seek restitution, compensation or revenge, merely to ascertain whether or not the owner was entitled to act as he did (or his wife made him, as I prefer to think of it).

Somebody asked what the boat was. For what it's worth it was a Sadler 34. Perhaps that explains why I was keen to see if the position could be reversed - there aren't that many out there to choose from.

Thanks again.

Rob
 
TQA said:
For example the buyer could show that they bought a similar yacht at a higher price and that it was the best deal they could get. They would then win the difference.
Click to expand...

Exactly. When I was in the brokering business, this happened but was eventually settled out of court. Situation was pretty much the same as the OP; verbal offer made and accepted on a Sunday. On the Monday, the vendor withdrew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top