Lucky Duck
Well-known member
Indeed, in the past I have signed contracts directly with the builder and others with the UK 'dealer'
Smelly X-Boat - who will win?
- Thread starter awol
- Start date
Indeed, in the past I have signed contracts directly with the builder and others with the UK 'dealer'
Mistroma
Well-known member
It makes little sense and they seem to be mixing a lot of things together. Probably the reporter getting confused as well.
I don't see the relevance of the polluted estuary either.
Smell of Sulphur mentioned frequently but at least that error was corrected later in the article.
Smell while testing the running water in the "kitchen sink"
The bacteria had then entered the yacht's internal sea water circulation systems
The bacteria have damaged the anti-foul (I thought it would be the other way around)
It just sounds as if they have a problem with the heads seawater inlet pipes. About the most common problem on many boats. I have a connection between basin outlet and flushing pipe to allow fresh water flush every 6 weeks or so.
They might have contamination of their freshwater systems but that can't be related to the water in the estuary (unless they decided to pour buckets full of it into the water tanks.
Head contaminating can happen when the outlet is close the the inlet and you get some accidental re-cycling. They seem to say that the estuary is the source and:
I get the impression that they are pretty clueless and not exactly typical PBO readers. More the sort who just pay someone to fix something and have no interest in how anything works.
I really hope they get a judge who is a keen sailor and has had a boat for 20-30 years.
I don't see the relevance of the polluted estuary either.
Smell of Sulphur mentioned frequently but at least that error was corrected later in the article.
Smell while testing the running water in the "kitchen sink"
The bacteria had then entered the yacht's internal sea water circulation systems
The bacteria have damaged the anti-foul (I thought it would be the other way around)
It just sounds as if they have a problem with the heads seawater inlet pipes. About the most common problem on many boats. I have a connection between basin outlet and flushing pipe to allow fresh water flush every 6 weeks or so.
They might have contamination of their freshwater systems but that can't be related to the water in the estuary (unless they decided to pour buckets full of it into the water tanks.
Head contaminating can happen when the outlet is close the the inlet and you get some accidental re-cycling. They seem to say that the estuary is the source and:
- There could be microbiologically influenced corrosion to those systems, which would compromise their integrity.
- This meant the protective anti-fouling coat on the Silver X was now 'unfit for purpose', creating a major risk of corrosion.
I get the impression that they are pretty clueless and not exactly typical PBO readers. More the sort who just pay someone to fix something and have no interest in how anything works.
I really hope they get a judge who is a keen sailor and has had a boat for 20-30 years.
Last edited:
pvb
Well-known member
That may the subject of a separate legal action. The customer's claim is clearly only against the selling dealer.
rotrax
Well-known member
Which boils down to who the seller was, the agent or the manufacturer.
Many contracts have been kicked into touch if they break the requirements of our consumer laws.
ProMariner
Active member
Always amazed how folk who are too stupid to learn how to use and maintain a boat can come up with 500k in the first place. Government contract, perhaps?
pvb
Well-known member
The press report says they are suing X-Yachts (GB) Ltd, which is the dealer I referred to in post 15.
Mistroma
Well-known member
Well it is described as a "luxury racing yacht" and the "wealthy power couple are suing a top boatyard", obviously not too short of money.
The wealthy financier, 70, and his girlfriend, 49 are both elite financiers by the way. Plenty of information about them in the article , jobs, approx. address, history. He is a director of a Mayfair-based company and she is currently head of insurance for some global investment advisers and previously an executive director at Lehman Brothers.
Nothing at all about Government contracts I'm afraid. Just banking, insurance & investment, so not much of a clue about the source of their money.
Pity there wasn't quite as much detail about the boat. I was surprised to find that they bought it in 2017 but that is likely to be the date they signed the contract for delivery in 2018.
I liked this comment.
"The design of the rudder is such that it causes violent broaching and extreme heeling, which makes it unsuitable for a yacht marketed as being equally suitable for racing and cruising."
I'm curious to see how they get on as the boat is kept in S.of France, they are in Mallorca, built in Denmark and dealer in UK plus Republic of Ireland. I think trial date is for end of this month with 6 days allocated. It seems likely to be expensive with 4 expert witnesses lined up plus builder, dealer and customers. Each side will call one expert in bio-deterioration and one expert in yacht surveying. The court also has the power to authorise the attendance of 14 named individuals in Ireland and Denmark.
Last edited:
pvb
Well-known member
I'm curious, too. As I said in post 15, the dealer is a tiny company. Even if the Court awards them some money, I don't think they'll receive anything. I'd imagine the dealer will just go into administration and magically re-appear under a similar name.
Mistroma
Well-known member
I believe it is actually both X-Yachts(GB) Ltd and also X-Yachts A/S (incorporated under the laws of Denmark). Probably just in case the dealer doesn't have enough cash.
EDIT: Just refreshed my screen and see that you already reached a similar conclusion that it would be risky to only involve the dealer.
Might be even more interesting than I thought as David Huber is a licensed engineer with graduate studies in business, finance and law. It would seem to indicate some technical understanding of boat systems plus an understanding of law. Perhaps the reported has muddled up the article and there are some serious points to watch.
Last edited:
pvb
Well-known member
I believe it is actually both X-Yachts(GB) Ltd and also X-Yachts A/S (incorporated under the laws of Denmark). Probably just in case the dealer doesn't have enough cash.
EDIT: Just refreshed my screen and see that you already reached a similar conclusion.
I'm not sure how they can sue X-Yachts A/S, as they would have had no contract with them.
Mistroma
Well-known member
I saw something about 2017 and sea trial in July 2018 and assumed that was the purchase date. It seems that they claim the original contamination was caused by bacteria present in the Haderslev estuary, where the boat was manufactured. Perhaps that's why X-Yachts in Denmark are involved.
It appears that the purchase date was actually 2009 and the boat is a lot older than I thought. References to price are all in Euro but that doesn't mean they dealt with X-yachts. My invoices from 2009 are in GBP although Jeanneau prices were in Euro and the dealer had insurance against a change in rate.
Last edited:
pvb
Well-known member
Where did you get the 2009 date from? All the press reports say the boat was brand new in 2017.
Mistroma
Well-known member
I thought the same thing and had only seen references to 2017 and a sea-trial in 2018.
It might be a typo in the court documents but it clearly stated that Mr Justice Kerr said:
"The claim arises from alleged defects in the Silver X, a yacht supplied by the defendants to the claimants in May 2009. The issues are: on what terms the claimants contracted to buy the yacht; whether ownership transferred; if so, on what terms; whether the yacht was defective; whether the claimants are entitled to reject her; whether they have validly done so; whether they are entitled to damages; and if so, in what amount. The claim is for upwards of €500,000."
Putting 2009 instead of 2019 might have made sense but all other dates reported are prior to that year.
Last edited:
pvb
Well-known member
ip485
Well-known member
"If the product is faulty then the liability for any harm caused by the product lies with the manufacturer. However, if the manufacturer can’t be traced, has gone out of business, or is outside the EU, then a claim could be made against the distributor, supplier or retailer instead."
pvb
Well-known member
Where's that from?
ip485
Well-known member
pvb
Well-known member
That relates to "damage, injury or death", hardly relevant in this case.
Mistroma
Well-known member
Sorry, I actually meant to put in a link but had browsed incognito with no history saved. I'd downloaded the document and read it a while after finding it.
I had to search again and remembered seeing it on the same page as "Vardey V Rooney"
You will find it listed here with a link to the case details and then this document.
ip485
Well-known member
Damages. A consumer can claim damages, which will generally equate to the cost of repair or replacement of the goods. They may also be able to claim compensation for damage caused by faulty goods (for example, where a washing machine leaked). If buyers have accepted the goods, their only remedy is damages.
You can sue under the Consumer Protection Act for compensation, death, personal injury and damage to private property, providing the amount of personal injury or damage to property is valued at £275 or more.
Who is liable for the injury/damage caused by the defective product?
The ‘producer’ is the person primarily liable for any damage caused by a defective product. The producer will include either the person who manufactured it or, if the product has not been manufactured, the person who abstracted it or processed the product, such as in agricultural produce. In addition to the producer, any person who puts his name on a product or holds himself out as being the producer of the product, will be liable. In the event of the product being manufactured outside the EU, the person who imported the product into the EU will be liable. The supplier will also be liable if the supplier fails to respond to a request to identify the producer of a defective product which they then, in turn, supplied.
You can sue under the Consumer Protection Act for compensation, death, personal injury and damage to private property, providing the amount of personal injury or damage to property is valued at £275 or more.
Who is liable for the injury/damage caused by the defective product?
The ‘producer’ is the person primarily liable for any damage caused by a defective product. The producer will include either the person who manufactured it or, if the product has not been manufactured, the person who abstracted it or processed the product, such as in agricultural produce. In addition to the producer, any person who puts his name on a product or holds himself out as being the producer of the product, will be liable. In the event of the product being manufactured outside the EU, the person who imported the product into the EU will be liable. The supplier will also be liable if the supplier fails to respond to a request to identify the producer of a defective product which they then, in turn, supplied.