Sold a faulty engine

[Fr J Hackett]

Exactly. It’s a far shout from the “spares and repairs” it ought to have been sold as!

Going to the expense and effort of hoiking out an old engine to put in a replacement only for it to die a couple of uses later is really poor.

Which really begs the question why would you put an engine in your boat if having bought it you found the oil to be black as night???

 

[Minerva]

Which really begs the question why would you put an engine in your boat if having bought it you found the oil to be black as night???

I probably wouldn’t. But even if it still looked green and fresh - all it would show is that the seller bunged some new oil in after running on the bench and before shipping it off the recipient. The metaphorical glitter, if you will.

As for why the seller fitted the engine, I can only imagine once your faced with an engine on a pallet in the boat yard yard, the logistics of returning it via an expensive courier may encourage you to proceed.

Remember the courier is just going to appear, drop it off and disappear immediately to achieve their countless other drop offs for the day, so they are not going to hang around whilst you bench test the engine.

 

[pcatterall]

Hello all thanks for your responses,
Just to clarify a few things; it was adverstised as "starts and runs nicely, has been fully cleaned and resprayed" so maybe not a full rebuild but certainly refurbished. This was not the case, not even a basic service.
I was recommended marine enterprises by a friend who said that the owner Sean was very meticulous with the engines that they sold, obviously standards have severely dropped since the company was passed on to the new owners.
Im just trying to weigh up wether putting in a court claim would be worth while or a complete waste of time.
Either way need a working engine so am going to have to get it fixed.
Seems like abit of a catch 22, how are you suppose to know whether an engine is running well without running it under load? Or how would you know theres no faults without stripping the engine down?

Sorry but I would not read 'starts and runs nicely, has been fully cleaned and resprayed' as in any way implying a refurb.

 

[Poignard]

Certainly it was "damned with faint praise" but does a customer forfeit any rights he might have because he doesn't realise that? Of course not.

But, I think it's worth remembering that we have only heard one side of this story.

 

[Refueler]

Maybe I'm wrong .. but IMHO .... "starts and runs nicely, has been fully cleaned and resprayed" .... in no way gives me any idea that the engine has been worked on in any form whatsoever.
Lets be honest - engine was probably run before lifting out of original boat .. or just on the bench .. for a quickie check it fires up. Nothing more.

Oil is black as night ... so's the oil in my boats - so what ? Just shows that seller didn't change the oil before selling.

As to engine not clean, seemingly not resprayed - OK .. that's a fault - but just shows seller is stretching it a bit !

I have sympathy for OP ... but TBH - I would not have expected a refurb engine of that size from a business at that price ... TBH - I would not have bought it anyway .. for me - I'd either look at a scrapper as I did at peanuts money and take risk - or spend the money for a real refurb engine ...

In OP's situation .. I would now be trying to find a guy who would work on the engine as a private cash in hand ... weigh up the costs ... decide what to do next.

 

[Tamar]

Don't forget, Very few people replace a perfectly good engine.

 

[Jim@sea]

Perhaps I am being illogical, or an old fuss-pot, but them having been resprayed would put me off.

Yes a few years ago I went to a Sailing Car Boot type show an engine remanufacturer had an engine on display and the respray paint job was terrible (I had a bodyshop for 20 years) I thought that they must be short of money and sold the one they used for display purposes and just done a quick job for that show or their standards of an engine respray were very low perhaps the same low standards for their reconditioning.
I know that where engine reconditioning is concerned in the Motor Trade in Manchester there was a business which did Reconditioned Engines, apparently they bought engines from written off cars, if say they had a Ford Fiesta engine in for re-conditioning or just building one for stock, they would take the pistons out of the engine from the written off car and just put it in the engine they were re-conditioning, also perhaps swap the oil pump, if an engine had suffered overheating and the head had been warped they would just put another head on it, They were done by Trading Standards,

 

[Boater Sam]

I think that the OP got what he paid for and nothing more. Sad, but that is how the world goes round, some you win, some you lose.

 

[Tamar]

Perhaps I am being illogical, or an old fuss-pot, but them having been resprayed would put me off.

Especially when they spray everything including over spray on the pallet it's sitting on

 

[Refueler]

Yes a few years ago I went to a Sailing Car Boot type show an engine remanufacturer had an engine on display and the respray paint job was terrible (I had a bodyshop for 20 years) I thought that they must be short of money and sold the one they used for display purposes and just done a quick job for that show or their standards of an engine respray were very low perhaps the same low standards for their reconditioning.
I know that where engine reconditioning is concerned in the Motor Trade in Manchester there was a business which did Reconditioned Engines, apparently they bought engines from written off cars, if say they had a Ford Fiesta engine in for re-conditioning or just building one for stock, they would take the pistons out of the engine from the written off car and just put it in the engine they were re-conditioning, also perhaps swap the oil pump, if an engine had suffered overheating and the head had been warped they would just put another head on it, They were done by Trading Standards,

OK - not regarding your example as TS appears from what you post had reason to take action.

But lets look at it generally ... if the seller states engine recon'd / refurb'd - then I would expect them to have used new parts where necessary. But I would always ask whether used or new parts used in the works.
Recon'd / Refurb does usually give idea that new parts are used ... while repaired can mean any part that is serviceable.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Snowgoose-1]

Not everyone has 20 years experience of marine diesels and is on a tight budget

Why sell a used engine where the exterior is covered in paint ? Why not sell it warts and all without , and include " not reconditioned " the buyer needs to know this and what it really looks like.

. I wouldn't mind having "sold as seen".

Through experience, I would never buy a used engine or boat without a separate engine survey by a reputable diesel engineer. It won't find everything but would probably be no more than about £100.

 

[Jim@sea]

Not everyone has 20 years experience of marine diesels and is on a tight budget

Why sell a used engine where the exterior is covered in paint ? Why not sell it warts and all without , and include " not reconditioned " the buyer needs to know this and what it really looks like.

. I wouldn't mind having "sold as seen".

Through experience, I would never buy a used engine or boat without a separate engine survey by a reputable diesel engineer. It won't find everything but would probably be no more than about £100.

Yes and as in the case of Perkins engines there are loads of Massey Ferguson dealers where you could take a Perkins engine to for them to check. In my case I bought a boat with a Thornycroft (BMC) engine in it and knew that there are many farm type Mobile Mechanics to go out to farms, and as it had been 30 years since I had a garage I had one visit the boat and watched him check the engine, i.e Do a Compression Test etc. He removed the injectors and I sent them to Diesel Bob (Who in the N, West is an expert) for checking and having watched the mechanic remove the, I knew how to refit them.

 

[Moodysailor]

What might a buyer understand by the statement "...ready to go back to work." ?

Might he, not unreasonably, assume that statement implies ". . . . fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied".

Respectfully, if the buyer assumes the latter from the former, they are foolish. One is a completely subjective term that has no legal implications. The other is the opposite - "fitness for purpose" has legal implications in English law. If the OP tried to claim on this basis, even the friendliest of judges would have a hard time awarding anything.

I'm not of the opinion that ME are squeaky-clean here, but there rarely is smoke without fire. If the price seems a bit keen, a second set of eyes might have been a wise investment. It is after all, a used engine bought sight unseen.

 

[nevis768]

Buying that engine, from that advert/decription, I would expect buyer beware, no redress if it doesn't function...

 

[PaulRainbow]

Buying that engine, from that advert/decription, I would expect buyer beware, no redress if it doesn't function...

Really ?

The ad states ;

"Recently removed from a Moody 35 sailing yacht to make way for a larger Beta engine.

Starts and runs nicely and has been fully cleaned and resprayed ready to go back to work."

But you would accept no redress if it doesn't function ?

 

[pcatterall]

Really ?

The ad states ;

"Recently removed from a Moody 35 sailing yacht to make way for a larger Beta engine.

Starts and runs nicely and has been fully cleaned and resprayed ready to go back to work."

But you would accept no redress if it doesn't function ?

I would expect just what it says. Back in my garage I would set it up in a test bed ( and appreciate that it was at least clean enough to handle and that SWIMBO liked the paint job) run it to see that it did indeed 'work and ran nicely' Job done in terms of the deal. If it was going in my boat then head off recon the injectors, reseat the valves check bores. Sump off check bearings clean pies etc. Run in test bed for a long period That would be enough to satisfy me that it would be worth putting in my boat?

 

[Ceirwan]

Really ?

The ad states ;

"Recently removed from a Moody 35 sailing yacht to make way for a larger Beta engine.

Starts and runs nicely and has been fully cleaned and resprayed ready to go back to work."

But you would accept no redress if it doesn't function ?

​

According the consumer rights act (which I believe would apply since its a business)
Goods should be satisfactory quality, as described, fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

So I think most likely the OP would have a chance of getting his money back should he choose to pursue it. He'll still be out the cost of having it fitted etc, but it would be something.
As someone described above, looks like their are new owners at the business, so maybe the standards have dropped.

I would expect just what it says. Back in my garage I would set it up in a test bed ( and appreciate that it was at least clean enough to handle and that SWIMBO liked the paint job) run it to see that it did indeed 'work and ran nicely' Job done in terms of the deal. If it was going in my boat then head off recon the injectors, reseat the valves check bores. Sump off check bearings clean pies etc. Run in test bed for a long period That would be enough to satisfy me that it would be worth putting in my boat?

Well that's all well & good but the OP clearly doesn't have your experience with engines, most those tasks aren't something that a regular boat owner would undertake.
I think if an engine is described as a good runner and ready to go back to work by a business, then its a reasonable assumption that it should run more than 3 times.
In the same way that if you buy a used car from a garage and it breaks down on the way home, you also have redress.

 

[Poignard]

Respectfully, if the buyer assumes the latter from the former, they are foolish. One is a completely subjective term that has no legal implications. The other is the opposite - "fitness for purpose" has legal implications in English law. If the OP tried to claim on this basis, even the friendliest of judges would have a hard time awarding anything.

I'm not of the opinion that ME are squeaky-clean here, but there rarely is smoke without fire. If the price seems a bit keen, a second set of eyes might have been a wise investment. It is after all, a used engine bought sight unseen.

I must disagree with you, respectfully of course.

Let's not forget what consumer protection law is for.

One of its main purposes is to protect consumers who lack expertise from being disadvantaged by their lack of expertise when they deal with commercial traders.

It gives consumers more protection than they might get under contract law.

Of course you, and I, would not realistically expect to receive a properly overhauled engine for the price the OP paid.

We know better; we possess expertise. We can look out for ouselves. We don't need the law's protection!

(Nevertheless, even though we have expertise, that does not mean we forfeit our right to the law's protection. We are just lucky that, in a case like this, we don't need it.)


It wouldn't be much good a trader who sold someone a dud engine claiming in his defence:

"Moody Sailor and Poignard would have known what they were getting for their money, therefore Thomas Martin should also have known."​

 

[Minerva]

Respectfully, if the buyer assumes the latter from the former, they are foolish. One is a completely subjective term that has no legal implications. The other is the opposite - "fitness for purpose" has legal implications in English law. If the OP tried to claim on this basis, even the friendliest of judges would have a hard time awarding anything.

I'm not of the opinion that ME are squeaky-clean here, but there rarely is smoke without fire. If the price seems a bit keen, a second set of eyes might have been a wise investment. It is after all, a used engine bought sight unseen.

If that is the case, the whole premise of marine enterprises’ businesses has just been entirely irrevocably destroyed.

They are not advertising spares & repairs or scrap engines - their own home page states “Specialists in the supply of quality new and used marine diesel engines, generators, gearboxes and spares.”

The OP did not purchase what was sold as “spares” so has a fair and reasonable expectation of buying a quality used engine, not one that goes pop after a couple of uses.

 

[PaulRainbow]

​

According the consumer rights act (which I believe would apply since its a business)
Goods should be satisfactory quality, as described, fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

So I think most likely the OP would have a chance of getting his money back should he choose to pursue it. He'll still be out the cost of having it fitted etc, but it would be something.

I agree, i would pursue the matter through the small claims court.