Sold a faulty engine

Tranona said:
The transaction does seem to come within the scope of the CRA. However as has been pointed out in a number of posts it is not just a matter of writing to the court and asking for the money back. The CRA has a process that has to be followed first - for example giving the seller an opportunity to repair or replace - which is the stage the OP is at now. If that fails he will have to build a case, probably based on not meeting the description, fitness for purpose and the fault(s) being there from the start. The court will also want to see that efforts have been made to resolve the problem, for example through negotiation or mediation.

The court is the last resort and although the small claims track is easy and low cost the claim still has to meet the legal standard. From what the OP has said so far he seems to be a long way off having a well documented case.
Click to expand...
Doesn't it depend on when the OP bought it. A claim within the first 6 months of ownership and it's assumed the fault was present at purchase, but after that you need to prove it was.
 
So,

The OP buys a 34 year old engine of unknown hours or service history:
- the engine arrives not as he understood the description but he doesn't reject it
- despite the engine not being to the expected spec he doesn't inspect it further
- he is advised how to remedy the lack of servicing, but from later comments he doesn't actually replace the impeller. What else didn't he do? The cost of engine mounts is stated clearly, but not that of the service items, so perhaps the rest of the service wasn't done either.
- he does consult a marine engineer about the tacho, but not about the condition of the engine
- he doesn't actually fit a working tacho
- the engine runs as advertised on testing - probably extended as he messed with the faulty tacho - there is no mention of whether the engine was cooled for that testing. If not cooled that would have destroyed an even slightly sticky impeller
- after launch and seatrials (which strangely didn't start with trialing the newly fitted engine) it allegedly isn't run until approaching an anchorage, where he cracks the injectors, and uses the (uninspected) primer, after which it runs fine again. This suggests the fuel supply wasn't connected properly, or not bled after installation, suggesting a rushed installation.
- the time after he has messed with the injectors and used the uninspected primer the injectors are dirty
- having cleaned the injectors the engine runs fine again, and is taken on a 10 mile trip running without a tacho, without a known new impeller, without having checked the thermostat or the heat exchanger or (apparently) fitted a temperature alarm. This journey at an alleged 3 knots (who buys a bigger engine to bimble along at 3 knots?)
- the next morning the engine shows signs that it was cooked on that trip
- the OP blames the seller

The OP apparently has the skills and tools to pull the old engine, fit a new one of a different type with all the work that entails, pull, clean and refit injectors at sea, pull the waterpump cover to inspect pump and heat exchanger - but he didn't fit a new impeller to an unknown, scruffy, engine? We're shown a rusty pump housing with no signs of anything having rotated in there recently, but not the impeller itself.

Sorry, but I don't think he has a leg to stand on - the engine could quite possibly have been saved by a £18 impeller.
 
KevinV said:
So,

The OP buys a 34 year old engine of unknown hours or service history:
*snip*

Sorry, but I don't think he has a leg to stand on - the engine could quite possibly have been saved by a £18 impeller.
Click to expand...

If purchasing from you or I, then you would be right, as it would be a private sale.
We can't lie about it when asked, and have to disclose information if the buyer asks it, but there is no expectation of a warranty.

However, when sold by a business, the consumer rights apply.
He was sold an engine that was described as ready to go back into service.

Arguing that the business told them how to put it right, is not really relevant, because you would have a reasonable expectation that an engine 'Ready to go' would not need remedial work carrying out first. Plus the issue was the heat exchanger and coolant pump, two items that were almost certainly not recommended to be replaced.

I've no idea at what point a court would decide that an engine had reached a reasonable amount of use, but I am sure it would be more than 3 times!
 
Minerva said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am not debating the premise of ME, I was commenting on the legal implications of the different wording posted, and cautioning against trying to imply one from the other.

There are some terminologies that have implications in English law, and some which are subjective and therefore open to intepretation. I have my own personal opinion of ME, but will say that they have been in this game long enough to know what wording to avoid.

On the plus side, small claims court are usually biased towards an individual over a business. As a solicitor said to me once - "ambiguity benefits the claimant"
 
Poignard said:
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."​
Click to expand...
Fair point well put. Thank you :)(y)
 
Whilst having some sympathy for the OP there appear to me to be two differing views here as to what would be their success if they were to pursue this through the courts. It doesn't appear clear cut and whilst fit for purpose might be one of the tests, with a second hand 30 year old engine I would tend to err on the side that the courts might view such a purchase as being one with an element risk to the purchaser. Just glad I refurbished my own engine, at least I knew what was done and when.
 
I wonder what would have happened if the OP had contacted the supplier as soon as the engine arrived and said "This is older and scruffier than expected, can you have your courier come back and pick it up for a full refund". While I'd never advocate ghosting a customer, I can see how the engine being fitted and used has muddied the waters for both OP and supplier.

One thing the OP needs to be clear about is what they want to happen to reach a satisfactory conclusion - Return for refund (messy as it's now in the boat and seemingly toast), contribution towards repair (how much and based on what?), like-for-like replacement?
 
Refueler said:
When I paid 250 quid for a scrapper 4-107 .... the engineer asked if I wanted it brushed down and resprayed ... I said at that price - it can stay looking like a lump of rust.
He threw some diesel at it ... it fired up and deal was done.
20+yrs later - is still purring away in my Sunrider 25 ... still looks like a lump of rust ... but has never let me down.
Click to expand...
Agree.

Basic respraying of old/used machinery without a thorough inspection, and consequent overhaul/repair/service iaw makers recommendation is very much a red flag imho.

Polishing turds, simply put?
 
The most worrying asprct is that the business will not return calls .

Any reasonable business would come up with a reasonable compromise to protect his reputation. Say. offer half the amount paid back. It is likely that ME paid much less than this originally.

The OP now has a difficult decision to make if he wants to go sailing next season . For many, it is not so much the money, we can take a financial hit
and put it down to one of life's potholes , but it's all the aggro involved
 
I have recent experience of the small claims process.

I claimed the full amount I could (£10k) as I didn't know how much repairs would be.

Part of the process now is mandatory arbitration and the other party refused to play ball in that they just restated their position.

The case then proceeded to a Court date.

At that point the general manager of the company rang me and was very keen to settle.

So we did to my complete satisfaction.

It's not a boaty related tale but the principles are exactly the same.

They really didn't want to take the risk that they MIGHT lose in court.

Oh and they paid my legal fees in the settlement!
 
Hot Property said:
I have recent experience of the small claims process.

I claimed the full amount I could (£10k) as I didn't know how much repairs would be.

Part of the process now is mandatory arbitration and the other party refused to play ball in that they just restated their position.

The case then proceeded to a Court date.

At that point the general manager of the company rang me and was very keen to settle.

So we did to my complete satisfaction.

It's not a boaty related tale but the principles are exactly the same.

They really didn't want to take the risk that they MIGHT lose in court.

Oh and they paid my legal fees in the settlement!
Click to expand...
Similar tale when I took a marina to the SCC. Do your homework and if you have a case invariably you win.
 
Fr J Hackett said:
Similar tale when I took a marina to the SCC. Do your homework and if you have a case invariably you win.
Click to expand...
My experience as well. Claiming from Easyjet for cancelled flight where they failed to comply with the law, their own T&Cs and action taken by their representative at the time. Still hard work to actually get the money even when they agreed.
 
PaulRainbow said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
While having sympathy the OP says it broke down a few weeks later, can't see him winning that one in court.....unfortunately
 
KompetentKrew said:
OP should send a letter before action and hope they ignore that and the small claims court papers. Winning by default is easier than arguing it.
Click to expand...
Good thought.
It's only around £8 through your local Post Office for guaranteed next day delivery and signed for. Might just get them to negotiate a compromise deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

B
How does a tacho get RPM and engine-hours data, and how to fix faulty readings?
Replies
16
Views
455
Babylon
B
N
Volvo Penta Alarm Module/Alternator Issues
Replies
1
Views
146
superheat6k
superheat6k

Share this page

Top