Our last boat was bought brand new second hand and had CAT C12 engines. No extended warranty was offered or indeed required as it transpires. The current boat was ordered new and built to our spec as first owners. A Volvo Penta 5 year protection plan was widely promoted during the build process.
There is no warranty available leisure, commercial or otherwise.
Commercial Nelson 45 Alert was re engined with Volvo d series I seem to recall
I think that is the standard Volvo 2 year warranty rather than the insurance product. Have you checked the warranty document that came with the engines?. I assume that Princess commissioned the engines and signed them off. Your consumer rights are with them, not Volvo and any issues under warranty are for them or the servicing dealer to deal with - and fight Volvo if necessary. After that, of course you are on your own, first with the servicing dealer and then Volvo.
The quote was from VP’s initial out-of-the-box warranty document.
Yes. The commercial equivalent, though, has different limitations. I stand to be corrected but I think that, for D13, it is 12 months/2,000 hours (lesser of).
That's a bit of a stretch. If you give me a lift to the airport and I give you a fiver toward petrol, would you feel obliged to immediately obtain a Hackney Carriage license?
If you were to go up the Thames, should you not be liable to S Khan's ULEZ charge?
The terms refer to “revenue generation”. By taking money for fuel you are generating revenue.
VP have confirmed we have an initial 2 year warranty on the engines. It is the extension to 5 years for a fee which has been removed from circulation.
I was merely quoting the words of the VP warranty when taken as written.That's a bit of a stretch. If you give me a lift to the airport and I give you a fiver toward petrol, would you feel obliged to immediately obtain a Hackney Carriage license?
It’s much easier bypassing the underlings and going directly to the big dog. It removes Chinese whispers and ensures any message is delivered precisely and to the point.
I think the definition of commercial use and pleasure use are pretty clear cut in U.K. maritime law and are widely accepted to allow closely related persons to share a direct cost. Your word guests may be broader that that legislation. The standard dictionary definitions of revenue usually refer to company / commercial use. Charities often do not refer to revenue unless it’s from a business operation. I don’t think VP would try to enforce an issue if you were sharing fuel costs in a manner permitted by MGN280 as pleasure use.
I agree it makes no sense as IPT is paid on the premium not the claim. But the regulatory world in insurance is complex so I can imagine their compliance costs are complex. Eg they are a Swedish co, with a UK subsidiary, selling to a U.K. resident but potentially performing the repair in one of many EU countries. So which country do you pay IPT in (U.K. presumably), corporation tax ??, vat on repair? Etc.
Let’s not get sidetracked by trying to re-write or interpret VP’s ambiguous terms and conditions.