That’s an excellent summary.You need to read the thread to appreciate why I made that observation. The OP already knew there had been an issue and work undertaken on the hull, but assumed it was resolved given the information provided by the seller. His beef is about there being further information held by the seller that said the remedial work was in dispute. Therefore irrelevant what the work was, nor what the boat is.
The discussion is about the sequence of events and whether he would have made an offer and incurred the cost of lifts and survey if he had known about the dispute. There is obviously now some recognition that the seller might have been more open as he has offered to pay part of the lift costs.
My original question was on how I best respond to the non-disclosure.
One regret, I have in the whole experience in that that I flew off the handle at the seller with threats…. With hindsight, if I responded with ‘if you really did not believe this was an outstanding issue you can refund me 50% of the survey costs and use my report to go back to your boatyard and ask for further remediation’ then that that would have saved us all a lot of stress as that’s where we finally ended up.
That’s one lesson I’ve taken away is to look for the common ground first, you can always escalate if that does not work !