srp
Well-Known Member
So why is nobody naming these scamming good-for-nothing marinas and boatyards? If they've got the brass neck to impose such a downright greedy condition surely it's quite legitimate for joe public to know about it?
Terms and Conditions?
- Thread starter Barry777
- Start date
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
It's pretty vague wording. I'd say that the "sale" is the actual transaction, not showing people round the boat. Just make sure the boat isn't stored or moored with them when you actually sell it. Vessel is capitalised so there should be a definition somewhere for that as well. If you go slowly through the tortuous logic and wording of the contract, replacing capitalised words with their definitions they frequently become gibberish.
My lawyers would refuse to work with any vendor that supplied such a badly worded contract and I'd be fired if I ever approved any wording like that. For example, as it's worded now if the Owner (which should be defined elsewhere so the wording after it "of any Vessel moored or stored with the Company" is at best not needed and at worst contradicts a definition) sells anything - not just his boat - he has to pay 1% of the net sale price unless sold through the companies nominated broker.
Unfortunately when I sign contracts in my own name I have to accept the drivel offered by the phone companies, utility providers etc. and know that I can't even threaten them 'cos they know I can't hurt them. It all boils down to how badly do they need your business but there's a couple of things you can try.
You could always send a polite letter back to them saying that you've received the part of the contract that looks after their interests, could they forward part that protects your interests please?
You could also "insist" a clause be inserted that gives you the right to veto a nominated broker if you are in litigation with the broker, etc. That's patently reasonable and they'll often simply say "just delete it then" rather than go through the hassle of rewriting it.
My lawyers would refuse to work with any vendor that supplied such a badly worded contract and I'd be fired if I ever approved any wording like that. For example, as it's worded now if the Owner (which should be defined elsewhere so the wording after it "of any Vessel moored or stored with the Company" is at best not needed and at worst contradicts a definition) sells anything - not just his boat - he has to pay 1% of the net sale price unless sold through the companies nominated broker.
Unfortunately when I sign contracts in my own name I have to accept the drivel offered by the phone companies, utility providers etc. and know that I can't even threaten them 'cos they know I can't hurt them. It all boils down to how badly do they need your business but there's a couple of things you can try.
You could always send a polite letter back to them saying that you've received the part of the contract that looks after their interests, could they forward part that protects your interests please?
You could also "insist" a clause be inserted that gives you the right to veto a nominated broker if you are in litigation with the broker, etc. That's patently reasonable and they'll often simply say "just delete it then" rather than go through the hassle of rewriting it.
DRANNIE
Well-Known Member
The starting point is that you sign the contract you are bound by the terms. However as a consumer you are in a stronger position than if you were a simple business user. The Court may look at the extent to which this potentially very onerus clause was brought to your attention and was promenantly displayed in the terms of the contract rather than hidden in the small print. The other factor discussed by some is also that the company has to prove their case ie they have to convinvce the court 'on the balance of probability' that you sold the boat and were in breach of contract by not paying them the 1%. Equally if they can establish that you sold the boat a court will not believe that you sold a say, £50k boat at a huge undervalue for a tenner.
As discussed above I would simply cross out the offending line in the copy you sign and photocopy the signed copy for your records. If necessary you could try and negotiate a clause along the lines of the bertholder shall not engage in the business of boat sales etc etc from the marina?
Essentially it's their marina and if they make it a condition that you paint your testicals green then you takes your choice...
As discussed above I would simply cross out the offending line in the copy you sign and photocopy the signed copy for your records. If necessary you could try and negotiate a clause along the lines of the bertholder shall not engage in the business of boat sales etc etc from the marina?
Essentially it's their marina and if they make it a condition that you paint your testicals green then you takes your choice...
KenMcCulloch
Well-Known Member
This is all very interesting and yet another piece of evidence that the leisure yachting industry has one main purpose, to make money. I was most intrigued by the post which described a buyer's experience of having their property impounded on the basis of an obligation between the yard and the previous owner. Would you sue the previous owner, the yard, or both? Capitalism eh, isn't it just great?
DownWest
Well-Known Member
What is the legal situation on impounding a boat no longer owned by the vendor because the marina has a civil claim against him?
Andrew
Andrew
wotayottie
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
This is all very interesting and yet another piece of evidence that the leisure yachting industry has one main purpose, to make money.
[/ QUOTE ]
Every industry has one main purpose - to make money. Is there any other reason for being in industry?
The issue here is supply and demand. Unreasonable clauses would not be possible if there were a balance of power between supplier and client. There isnt when all marinas are full , and there isnt with utilities when you have to have thier procduct but are just one of the million consumers they deal with.
This is all very interesting and yet another piece of evidence that the leisure yachting industry has one main purpose, to make money.
[/ QUOTE ]
Every industry has one main purpose - to make money. Is there any other reason for being in industry?
The issue here is supply and demand. Unreasonable clauses would not be possible if there were a balance of power between supplier and client. There isnt when all marinas are full , and there isnt with utilities when you have to have thier procduct but are just one of the million consumers they deal with.
DRANNIE
Well-Known Member
Hmm unless there are some specific shipping regluations I would have thought your case would be against the marina. They do not have a mortgage or legal charge over the boat and it is no longerthe property of the vendor. Even if it was they would need a court Judgement to seize possession. I suspect you might also be able to persuade the police it was a criminal matter.
All good reason to get it all sorted before you sign on the dotted line. Also maybe something to check when buying a boat as well as the usual is their a mortgage question.
All good reason to get it all sorted before you sign on the dotted line. Also maybe something to check when buying a boat as well as the usual is their a mortgage question.