Sunseeker manhattan 50

[volvopaul]

Really? He wouldn't be the first person to have to resort to law to get money from ss that is due to him. (Magnum won, by the way). You need to tread carefully.

It was sunseeker direct from Poole office that handle there brokerage as the boat in question was a stock part exchange. The deal went like this, he had fairline to part ex so ss looked at his and valued it, figures agreed, the survey on 50 brought up major faults that we're structural and functional so buyer asked for these to be rectified , they declined so he wanted his money back, which is quite acceptable in my book. Ss didn't want to play at first hence he went legal, surely this isn't the action a well known company should have took on the grounds there boat was a lemon. I think it's still for sale.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

It was sunseeker direct from Poole office that handle there brokerage as the boat in question was a stock part exchange. The deal went like this, he had fairline to part ex so ss looked at his and valued it, figures agreed, the survey on 50 brought up major faults that we're structural and functional so buyer asked for these to be rectified , they declined so he wanted his money back, which is quite acceptable in my book. Ss didn't want to play at first hence he went legal, surely this isn't the action a well known company should have took on the grounds there boat was a lemon. I think it's still for sale.

No it certainly isn't the action of a reputable company. If the faults were minor, then there might be an argument, depending on the terms of the contract, that the deposit was not refundable but from what you describe, the faults were very material and thus the buyer would be entitled to ask for return of his deposit. Apart from this, you would expect a reputable company to want to rectify any faults at it's own cost in order to protect it's reputation and to maintain a good relationship with it's customer.
I do find SS's actions with regard to this potential buyer and towards magnum to be very odd. Either SS are so short of money that they have to penny pinch or there's something wrong in the culture of the company

 

[DougH]

I do find SS's actions with regard to this potential buyer and towards magnum to be very odd. Either SS are so short of money that they have to penny pinch or there's something wrong in the culture of the company

The Manhattan 50 was being offered by Sunseeker (London) (Ltd?) who are an independant broker/distributor based at Poole with main offices in London.

Magnum's beef amd subsequent court action was with Sunseeker International Ltd, the manufacturer.

Sunseeker International does not own Sunseeker (London).

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

The Manhattan 50 was being offered by Sunseeker (London) (Ltd?) who are an independant broker/distributor based at Poole with main offices in London.

Magnum's beef amd subsequent court action was with Sunseeker International Ltd, the manufacturer.

Sunseeker International does not own Sunseeker (London).

Thanks DougH. Thats why I posed the question whether it was a dealer or the SS sales office themselves who did the deal. VP suggested that it was a SS direct sale so hence my comments. Yup, I suppose SS don't have direct control over their dealers but maybe they ought to know how they operate

 

[DougH]

Thanks DougH. Thats why I posed the question whether it was a dealer or the SS sales office themselves who did the deal. VP suggested that it was a SS direct sale so hence my comments. Yup, I suppose SS don't have direct control over their dealers but maybe they ought to know how they operate

Sunseeker International Ltd do not sell direct and you have to go though an appointed distributor just like Princess & Fairline etc.

I do not know but I would surmise that some of the larger Super Yachts would be on a direct basis due to the huge sums involved but that is a different senario.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Sunseeker International Ltd do not sell direct and you have to go though an appointed distributor just like Princess & Fairline etc.

I'm not suggesting that SS sell directly which is why I used the term 'SS sales office'. Few manufacturers sell direct for reasons we won't go into here. Not sure about SS but, for example, Princess have their own wholly owned sales company (as well as independent dealers), a separate company but still controlled by Princess.
This begs the question though as to why magnum was able to take legal action against SS when (presumably) his sales contract was with a distributor

 

[DougH]

This begs the question though as to why magnum was able to take legal action against SS when (presumably) his sales contract was with a distributor

Very true Mike.

Guess that's for Magnum to say if he so wishes.

Most of us would understand if he remained silent on the subject.

 

[volvopaul]

The Manhattan 50 was being offered by Sunseeker (London) (Ltd?) who are an independant broker/distributor based at Poole with main offices in London.

Magnum's beef amd subsequent court action was with Sunseeker International Ltd, the manufacturer.

Sunseeker International does not own Sunseeker (London).

Doug h are you referring to my post?

If so it wasn't London office as its 2 years ago now , it was sunseekers own boat as they were to take his in part ex, he knew it was a stock boat from the start, there were no terms written other than the usual in that he could have it surveyed for faults. All was well at the outset buyer lost out on lifts and survey, sunseeker didn't loose anything other than time spent on the deal which is what they are there for, to sell boats.
I can even tell you the name of who they dealt with as I know his father in Lymington. If ss do hide behind London offices of whatever they should make it clear before they start negotiations as my buyer thought he was dealing direct with ss after sales. If that's how it works through franchised offices they should make it clear. Poor show in my opinion over deposit held and how they handled the eventual refund. It's posts like this that make buyers aware of the pitfalls of buying a boat .

 

[henryf]

I also looked at the Sunseeker but they seem very expensive (asking) for what they are. The Princess 50/54 would be my suggestion (obviously!) as well.

Good luck with which every route is chosen.

Henry

 

[jfm]

This begs the question though as to why magnum was able to take legal action against SS when (presumably) his sales contract was with a distributor

It's complex, but broadly speaking (a) Magnum had a manufucturer guarantee of the dealer's contractual performance, which is unusual but perfectly possible - you wouldn't expect Eddie Jordan to deal with just a dealer for example, and if a custmer pushes hard he can get manufucturer on the hook; and (b) manufacturer conduct can also cause them to establish a duty of care to the end customer - it is actually incredibly easy in english law to establish a duty of care. (I'm using the term "duty of care" legally precisely, not in the way it is bandied about sometimes on this forum)

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

(b) manufacturer conduct can also cause them to establish a duty of care to the end customer - it is actually incredibly easy in english law to establish a duty of care. (I'm using the term "duty of care" legally precisely, not in the way it is bandied about sometimes on this forum)

Yes you're right and it works the other way round too. If a dealer acts as an agent for a manufacturer in arranging a sales contract between the manufacturer and the customer, the dealer can be deemed to have a duty of care to either party even though there is no direct contract between dealer and customer or manufacturer.
Well played, magnum. Sounds like he got some good advice when buying his boat

 

[Nick_H]

I'm certainly not defending SS actions in Magnum's case, or the agents wrt the boat VP mentions, but lets not forget that Sunseeker put themselves in financial hardship precisely because they did honour the obligations of one of their dealers that went belly up. Whatever else, they deserve some credit for that.

I think VP's case also highlights a problem with the standard AYBA contract, that you have to argue about materiality of any faults found. I've always refused to sign it, and will continue to do so, for that reason.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I'm certainly not defending SS actions in Magnum's case, or the agents wrt the boat VP mentions, but lets not forget that Sunseeker put themselves in financial hardship precisely because they did honour the obligations of one of their dealers that went belly up. Whatever else, they deserve some credit for that.

Fair point but I do wonder whether it was entirely for altruistic reasons. Surely it would have been much cheaper to reimburse any customers who were at risk of losing money due to the dealer going bust than take on all the liabilities of the dealer, especially when it put the whole company at risk. Maybe their own banks bounced them into doing it or maybe there were some cross guarantees complicating the situation. I don't know, just guessing but it didn't seem like an entirely logical business decision at the time. Not sure I know of any other manufacturers rescuing their dealers in the boat industry

 

[jfm]

Not sure I know of any other manufacturers rescuing their dealers in the boat industry

What happened with Princess and the Scandi dealer? Spannerman?

 

[DougH]

Doug h are you referring to my post?

If so it wasn't London office as its 2 years ago now , it was sunseekers own boat as they were to take his in part ex, he knew it was a stock boat from the start, there were no terms written other than the usual in that he could have it surveyed for faults. All was well at the outset buyer lost out on lifts and survey, sunseeker didn't loose anything other than time spent on the deal which is what they are there for, to sell boats.
I can even tell you the name of who they dealt with as I know his father in Lymington. If ss do hide behind London offices of whatever they should make it clear before they start negotiations as my buyer thought he was dealing direct with ss after sales. If that's how it works through franchised offices they should make it clear. Poor show in my opinion over deposit held and how they handled the eventual refund. It's posts like this that make buyers aware of the pitfalls of buying a boat .

Paul,

May I suggest you contact the person (your client) and obtain the exact name of the Company he was considering purchasing the boat from.

The Company that sells the boats from Poole is Sunseeker (London) Ltd and I was careful not to suggest otherwise. I did not say 'London office'.

I think you will be in a better position to see if Sunseeker International Ltd (the actual manufacturer) was connected with the sale of this boat.

Without doubt I received first class service from the Sunseeker organisation and continue to do so even though the boat is out of warranty.

 

[Jamesuk]

My friend skippers a 3to5year old Manhatten 88/92 and i told him i was having a few problems with the watermaker onboard the boat im on, he then ranted on about all the problems he was having onboard his boat.

Not wanting to put you off, just employ a decent mechanic to check over the boat unless your a pro 'with the time' to do it yourself.

 

[volvopaul]

Paul,

May I suggest you contact the person (your client) and obtain the exact name of the Company he was considering purchasing the boat from.

The Company that sells the boats from Poole is Sunseeker (London) Ltd and I was careful not to suggest otherwise. I did not say 'London office'.

I think you will be in a better position to see if Sunseeker International Ltd (the actual manufacturer) was connected with the sale of this boat.

Without doubt I received first class service from the Sunseeker organisation and continue to do so even though the boat is out of warranty.

Doug, thanks for your input, it seems to me you have a vested interest in the company layout of sun seeker and your honest enough to share it with us. It's a real pity for sun seekers after sales figures that they don't to the general, honest potential buyers of there stock boat.
Why hide behind another company and portray to my friend who was going to spend half a million with them, then give him grief both by trying to sell him a real lemon, then hold his cash,mthere certainly getting some good feedback on here, just right in time for Southampton boatshow, isn't life just great.


Out of interest which is your boat in calador, as I had numerous walks around this week and viewed a couple of boats there too.

 

[volvopaul]

I've just spoken to my friend about the 50, he also added that the boat was advertised as 2006 when in actual fact after the surveyor checked it was a 2005 boat, amazing isn't it how figures can be twisted, typo error etc= £££££££££

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I've just spoken to my friend about the 50, he also added that the boat was advertised as 2006 when in actual fact after the surveyor checked it was a 2005 boat, amazing isn't it how figures can be twisted, typo error etc= £££££££££

Thats quite common. Brokers tend to advertise the date that the boat was sold or launched rather than the date shown on the CE plate. IMHO, they ought to standardise on the CE plate date of manufacture

 

[MRC]

Sunseeker will show the hull number ending on year of build and model year / delivery.

Sounds like your friends boat would of ended in 506. Built on 2005 but a 2006 model delivered new in 2006. I too would call that a 2006 boat.

As it happens I have two sunseekers, in my minds both from 2008. One is 708 as it started build in 2007 and was delivered new in 2008 and the other is 808 which went into build in early 2008 an delivered late in the year 2008. In my mind they are both 2008 boats.

Same as someone who has a car registered in jan of 2012 they would advertise it as a 2012 car. When was the last time you saw a car advertised as the year it was built?

Generally the warranties kick in from delivery date which is another reason to advertise it as 06