What is a boat sellers liability?

[PaulGooch]

You could start by just accepting that it's the skipper's responsibility to make sure that in all respects his vessel is fit and ready to proceed to sea.

I am not trying to be rude to you, or make flippant comment, but if I were you, I would rectify the faults, have a good squint around for any that you have missed, then fix those. After that, get on with your life and enjoy your boat.

Never rely on others including surveyors, on matters regarding the safety or fitness of your vessel. If you don't feel competent to do the above, then start learning..............Fast.

Completely agree with you.

 

[PaulGooch]

What does your Bill of Sale say? If my experience is anything to go by it will contain a clause such as "as seen, tried and tested".
The Sale of Goods Act states that purchases should be "fit for purpose" but this is in UK consumer law and may not apply in Holland. It could be argued that as it floats it is fit for purpose!

It's totally relevant to this thread, but had the sale taken place in this country, it would be illegal for a trader to use words and phrases such as "as seen, tried and tested" on a contact of sale or an invoice.

In the UK, the sale of goods act stipulates that good and services must be "of merchantable quality" and "fit for purpose". It is an offence to attempt to take away a persons statutory rights be using phrases such as the above.

 

[Tranona]

It's totally relevant to this thread, but had the sale taken place in this country, it would be illegal for a trader to use words and phrases such as "as seen, tried and tested" on a contact of sale or an invoice.

In the UK, the sale of goods act stipulates that good and services must be "of merchantable quality" and "fit for purpose". It is an offence to attempt to take away a persons statutory rights be using phrases such as the above.

Agree - doubt Dutch consumer law will be any different in principle. That is why it is important the OP establishes exactly the nature of the contracts covering the transaction and the laws that govern them.

Then he can tackle the (probably) more difficult task of determining whether there was any negligence, what his loss is, who is responsible and then how to get redress. Long way to go!

 

[davidej]

What you haven't told us is did you have a survey or not.

If not it seems to me you are on very thin ice. It is a normal term of the trade that the purchaser get his own independant survey. If you decide not to do so, you are accepting a degree of risk of unknown defects.

 

[PaulGooch]

What you haven't told us is did you have a survey or not.

If not it seems to me you are on very thin ice. It is a normal term of the trade that the purchaser get his own independant survey. If you decide not to do so, you are accepting a degree of risk of unknown defects.

Says in first post that he had a surveyor David.

 

[davidej]

Sorry! That's what come of skimming thru three pages.

As you did have a survey, surely your recourse (if you have one) is against him. His job is to discover significant defects and report them to you.

 

[Chrusty 1]

Sorry! That's what come of skimming thru three pages.

As you did have a survey, surely your recourse (if you have one) is against him. His job is to discover significant defects and report them to you.

Yup and the OPs job is to read and inwardly digest, then do summat about it, like rectifying any fault that were highlighted in the surveyors report.

I can't believe some of the posts on this one, it's like most of you are defending a culture of compensation!!! If the OP wants a whole heap of stress, and possible financial damage he would do well to follow some of what's been said by others on this one.

To the OP. Give yourself a break chap, sort the defects, and get on with your life. It don't sound to me like anybody has set out to do you, and as I said before, the bottom line is, that it's your responsibility to make sure your vessel is seaworthy before it leaves the dock / pontoon or whatever. You could well spend more money trying to hang responsibility and or blame on somebody else, than ever it will cost you to rectify the faults.

I didn't know is no excuse, it's your job as skipper to know, end of.

Reading this thread, it is making me wonder how many people spend a lot of money buying boats and really haven't got a bloody clue. It don't exactly fill me with confidence in my fellow sailing folk.

 

[paulieraw]

I have to agree with those that say you need to know your boat before taking it out to sea. How many holes in her? Where do they go? Are they watertight? Are they on or off?

It is your resonsibility to check these prior to sailing, if you don't then the risk is on you.

Years ago I bought a boat from Nationwide Yachts, 400m down the road the boat slid on its trailor through the rear window of my Father in Laws car. As the driver I was responsible for checking my load prior to driving, it made no difference that they had loaded the boat.

With other problems you may have some comeback, perhaps on the surveyor, but likely none on the seller, unless you can prove negligence. (not easy)

If you had a terms of sale read that carefully, it may suggest a period for identifying defects.

 

[Retired in Crete]

It's totally relevant to this thread, but had the sale taken place in this country, it would be illegal for a trader to use words and phrases such as "as seen, tried and tested" on a contact of sale or an invoice.

In the UK, the sale of goods act stipulates that good and services must be "of merchantable quality" and "fit for purpose". It is an offence to attempt to take away a persons statutory rights be using phrases such as the above.

Most second hand shops in the UK give receipts which clearly state on the reverse "No warranty is given or implied" (I have one in my hand at the moment). Are you saying that this is illegal?

The definition of "of merchantable quality" is obscure. It could be argued that if you are willing to buy it then it must be "merchantable".

I have already stated that if it is a boat which floats it is "fit for purpose".

Buying anything second hand is a gamble. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you want everything to be perfect then you have to buy new.

Like some others on this forum, I despair of the "compensation culture" currently endemic in the UK. There is always somebody else to blame. Time to take responsibility for our own actions me thinks.

John

 

[Tranona]

Most second hand shops in the UK give receipts which clearly state on the reverse "No warranty is given or implied" (I have one in my hand at the moment). Are you saying that this is illegal?

The definition of "of merchantable quality" is obscure. It could be argued that if you are willing to buy it then it must be "merchantable".

I have already stated that if it is a boat which floats it is "fit for purpose".

Buying anything second hand is a gamble. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you want everything to be perfect then you have to buy new.

Like some others on this forum, I despair of the "compensation culture" currently endemic in the UK. There is always somebody else to blame. Time to take responsibility for our own actions me thinks.

John

You are confusing things here. The key issue is whether the seller was selling the boat by way of trade, in which case the transaction is covered by consumer law. If he was a broker selling on behalf of the owner then the sale is governed solely by the terms of the contract or the general law of contract. It is for the buyer to determine (probably via a survey) that the boat is as described because once he has bought it he has no recourse to the seller.

If it was bought using a HISWA contract that the seller is required to state any deficiencies that are known and if the surveyor finds more, the seller has to correct, or make allowance in the price. Their contracts are a bit more prescriptive than is the norm in the UK but the principle is the same.

Leaving aside the seacock issue, according to the OP some faults were declared but not considered important, but it is unclear whether the additional faults were there when the boat was surveyed. So it is really up to him to determine if he thinks that the vendor or surveyor were negligent and that his loss is sufficient to justify pursuing. There is simply not enough information to decide what to do.

"Merchantable quality" is not difficult. The goods should be fit for the purpose intended, but this needs to take into account the nature of the goods. You would not expect a 30 year old boat to be the same as a new boat. It is always open to argument, which is one of the reasons why very few substantial boats are sold by way of trade - the risks for the vendor are too great, and are avoided if the transaction is between two private individuals when the onus falls on the buyer (and his surveyor).

Having seen examples of people being stitched up by vendors and surveyors it is right that there are mechanisms available to seek redress, even if they are often difficult to use.

 

[Plevier]

I have no comment on the alleged defects in your boat but I have experience of buying a boat from a firm that sometimes operates as a broker but in this case was selling as owner having taken it in part exchange, this was Burton Waters in Ipswich.
Their conditions of sale clearly differentiated between brokerage and selling from stock. In the former case you were on your own, basically. In the latter case they fully accepted their responsibilities under consumer protection legislation. They did things like replace the Volvo shaft seal because it was over 5 years old and Volvo says change at 5 years. They also rectified various other defects I found without argument. They were excellent.
So I would say you were sold to by way of trade, do not refer to the firm as brokers in this case, they were trade sellers, and the deal is covered by relevant legislation. How briefly they owned the boat is not relevant.

 

[sigmasailor]

Says in first post that he had a surveyor David.

It doesn't say in whose name the surveyor did his work. In Dutch law you have shared sponsibilty, it is important that the buyer carries out his own inspection.