Trip on The Kipper as a charity auction prize?

[jfm]

The question of whether they are friends, and whether they actively crew, are red herrings. (The definition is in the form x or y or z, not x and y and z.) If the purpose of your voyage is your pleasure (and not profit), then you can take who you like and they can do anything or nothing while aboard.

Littlesister you are interpreting the law as if the word "only" weren't there. But it is there. Hence what you write above isn't correct

 

[Marmalade]

Isn't there also a question of risk acceptance and consent? If the winners of the auction believe they are bidding for a day out on a commercial charter yacht, they surely have a reasonable expectation that the yacht is coded, that the skipper and crew are qualified appropriately and that the yacht's insurance covers them against mishaps.

If, on the other hand, they understand and accept that they are bidding for a day out on another parent's personal boat and that they will be his guests for the day does this change the picture? My (legally untrained) expectation would be that they understood the nature of the transaction and accepted the risk involved. This presumably doesn't stop them suing the OP if he's negligent, but does it address the question of whether the law would see the trip as a commercial hire. - In other words - what's the nature of the contract?

Common sense says you should be able to do this as long as the bidders understand the whole picture...

 

[lw395]

If someone is paying for it, it's trade.
I wouldn't do it without talking to my insurer.

 

[ChrisE]

I tried to do this for a charity auction at my daughters office.
My insurers said definitely not covered.
And they were the ones organising the auction.

Must depend upon the insurer then as I asked the same question of our insurer when offering such a prize a year or so ago and they siad as long as no money changed hands, no problem.

 

[jac]

I think people are confusing two issues.

1) is it legal. View seems to be that if you don't receive any financial benefit from it then coding and commercial endorsement is not required.

2) is it covered by insurance. For that there will be as many answers as there are insurance policies and you will need to check. Most cover your personal use but not commercial use so would probably be driven by 1) above but you need to check.

 

[jfm]

I think people are confusing two issues.

1) is it legal. View seems to be that if you don't receive any financial benefit from it then coding and commercial endorsement is not required.

2) is it covered by insurance. For that there will be as many answers as there are insurance policies and you will need to check. Most cover your personal use but not commercial use so would probably be driven by 1) above but you need to check.

You're right to separate those two issues. However, ref #1 where you say "view is...", that is perhaps some peoples view but it isn't everyone's view and isn't my view. My view is that the law says this trip requires a coded boat with qualified skipper

 

[jac]

You're right to separate those two issues. However, ref #1 where you say "view is...", that is perhaps some peoples view but it isn't everyone's view and isn't my view. My view is that the law says this trip requires a coded boat with qualified skipper

Fwiw I think you're right.

I think you have to pass the tests in para a, b and c to not be commercial.

Para C makes it clear that no money must be paid by the users. If the users have paid in an auction of promises then money has been paid by the users. So a trip in this on text may arguably pass para A, def pass para B put fail para C.

 

[Colvic Watson]

Fwiw I think you're right.

I think you have to pass the tests in para a, b and c to not be commercial.

Para C makes it clear that no money must be paid by the users. If the users have paid in an auction of promises then money has been paid by the users. So a trip in this on text may arguably pass para A, def pass para B put fail para C.

Yikes. I'll auction a picnic on the stationary Kipper and hope the mooring warps don't come undone.

 

[Neil_Y]

I'll offer a ride in the front seat of an I14, bring your own wetsuit and be prepared to work, swim or both.

 

[jfm]

Fwiw I think you're right.

I think you have to pass the tests in para a, b and c to not be commercial.

Para C makes it clear that no money must be paid by the users. If the users have paid in an auction of promises then money has been paid by the users. So a trip in this on text may arguably pass para A, def pass para B put fail para C.

In this scenario both (a) and (c) are failed. No doubt about it.

(a) is failed because the trip isn't only for the sport or pleasure of the owner/family/friends; it is also for the pleasure of the auction "winner". (c) is failed because there is an "other" payment of money by a user of the vessel, namely the bid/donation paid by the auction "winner" (the question of profit/commerciality, or not, is totally irrelevant in this circumstance).

Thus you can be prosecuted under 2 separate headings. There isn't any doubt about any of this. What's more, this isn't even an anomaly in the law. The law is intended to cover this situation and protect people in the position of this auction winner

(Someone normally shoots the messenger at this point in these threads but I don't mind )

 

[john_morris_uk]

The law is intended to cover this situation and protect people in the position of this auction winner

(Someone normally shoots the messenger at this point in these threads but I don't mind )

That's strange as I was involved (albeit on the periphery) of the original discussions regarding the implementation of coding and commercial practice, and that wasn't the intention at all as far as I am concerned.

However the law is open to interpretation and if you are a lawyer and say that is your take in it, who am I to argue.

 

[jfm]

Implementation of coding and policy behind the law are quite separate things. You can, for example, see the intention of the parliamentary draftsman in subpara c very clearly from the words he used. While he clearly intended to capture a profit element in (a), he didn't in (c) which merely looks at whether payment is made.

 

[jac]

In this scenario both (a) and (c) are failed. No doubt about it.

(a) is failed because the trip isn't only for the sport or pleasure of the owner/family/friends; it is also for the pleasure of the auction "winner". (c) is failed because there is an "other" payment of money by a user of the vessel, namely the bid/donation paid by the auction "winner" (the question of profit/commerciality, or not, is totally irrelevant in this circumstance).

Thus you can be prosecuted under 2 separate headings. There isn't any doubt about any of this. What's more, this isn't even an anomaly in the law. The law is intended to cover this situation and protect people in the position of this auction winner

(Someone normally shoots the messenger at this point in these threads but I don't mind )

But you may be able to make the argument under a) that the winner is a friend. Especially if the winner is a genuine friend of your daughter, go to parties, have sleepovers etc. hence the "may" in my original statement.

There is no wriggle room for c) if the winner made a payment, you're covered.

 

[Pete R]

Afraid that is not the view of MCA. Provided they areactively crewing the boat, should be OK, if sat in the corner doing nothing think again.

I do not read the reply from the MCA saying that at all.

 

[Pete R]

The law is intended to cover this situation and protect people in the position of this auction winner

I agree with John Morris. Surely the intention of this law is to stop people using their boat on a commercial basis and not too catch someone out who happens to take a complete stranger on a jolly.

I think your interpretation of the word "only" in the legislation is flawed. I can let anyone I want on my boat and so can my family and friends, even if I have no idea who that person is, without having to get the boat coded.

 

[Angele]

I can let anyone I want on my boat and so can my family and friends, even if I have no idea who that person is, without having to get the boat coded.

... but not if they have had to pay for the privilege (anything more than a contribution to the costs of the voyage). (Para C).

 

[john_morris_uk]

Implementation of coding and policy behind the law are quite separate things. You can, for example, see the intention of the parliamentary draftsman in subpara c very clearly from the words he used. While he clearly intended to capture a profit element in (a), he didn't in (c) which merely looks at whether payment is made.

I'm sorry, but I didn't make myself clear. It was not the implementation but the drafting stage I was involved in the periphery of.

 

[trevorgh]

... but not if they have had to pay for the privilege (anything more than a contribution to the costs of the voyage). (Para C).

Would this also be the case if Lazy Kipper were to contribute those costs to the school funds instead of "friend/tripper" bidding in an auction?

 

[neilf39]

In this scenario both (a) and (c) are failed. No doubt about it.

(a) is failed because the trip isn't only for the sport or pleasure of the owner/family/friends; it is also for the pleasure of the auction "winner". (c) is failed because there is an "other" payment of money by a user of the vessel, namely the bid/donation paid by the auction "winner" (the question of profit/commerciality, or not, is totally irrelevant in this circumstance).

Thus you can be prosecuted under 2 separate headings. There isn't any doubt about any of this. What's more, this isn't even an anomaly in the law. The law is intended to cover this situation and protect people in the position of this auction winner

(Someone normally shoots the messenger at this point in these threads but I don't mind )

If a) is failed then you are saying you would need to get your boat coded to take a potential buyer out on a trial sail??? They likely won't be owner/family/friend as more likely to be a complete stranger. I think it all comes down to interpretation of friend. After all a friend can be someone who by religion is a Quaker. If you follow the dictionary definitions down you just really have to have some form of liking for each other so if you are prepared to mutually agree to share an activity for a period of time (with no form of coercion on either side) by being out on a boat for example I reckon you could claim that. It doesn't qualify how strong a friendship it has to be and how do you get to become a friend in the first place, by sharing a joint interest/views etc... I guess you then get into the semantics of friend versus acquaintance so when does an acquaintance become a friend as the former is someone you know who is not a close friend. Does an acquaintance count as a weak/distant friend and so still a friend. It gets even sillier if you can go sailing with your third cousin twice removed as they are 'family' but you never met them until the day. In fact one definition of family is all the descendants of a common ancestor so if we go far back enough we all count as family. Anyway as far as I can see you will only know what it really means when you have to test it in a court of law against the specific instance in question as it is so open to interpretation.

 

[JumbleDuck]

After all a friend can be someone who by religion is a Quaker.

That would be a Friend, not a friend. A Friend who is also a friend is often referred to as a Ffriend. or sometimes a ffriend.