Broker obligation (after sale)...

[Ribshop]

Originally Posted by ericmx29

It's the previous owner, but what's difference, because is the broker who sold me the boat?
i 've this document from the broker:

it's written 1999 not 1993.

You purchased it through them not from them.

The year you may have a case with if the serial number is still clear, but then were you asked to confirm the information on the paperwork was correct when you collected?

Even if you were to win the chances are you would get awarded a financial settlement in costs between a 93 build and a 99.

[mister p]

You see, even Eric has enough balls to not disclose the broker.

I bet the broker would bleat about complaining clients.

Eric, I respect your standing here. It appears that we understand your issue but before we pass judgement we need to be 100% sure of the rules.

Which I believe is the right way.

So stick with it Eric.

[Boats&Outboards]

Originally Posted by ericmx29

i only had one contact, or by email or by phone: the broker, the broker describes me the boat, i often asked about the year he never told me 1993, or for the boat or for the engine.
when i came, i only saw the broker, i don't know who paid him.
when i had the issue with the internal tank, i contact him every day.
i don't know if i can give his name.

I imagine one where on your contract from the broker you have the following disclaimer

"The company offers the details of this vessel in good faith but cannot guarantee or warrant the accuracy of this information nor warrant the condition of the vessel/equipment. A buyer should instruct his agents, or his surveyors, to investigate such details as the buyer desires validated. This vessel is offered subject to prior sale, price change, or withdrawal without notice"

If they merely acted as the selling agent the onus is on the buyer to fully satisfy themselves prior to purchase. Most brokers (including me) obviously prefer to assist with potential issues rather than use the above to back out of any situations but not everyone is the same. The brokers would have a signed inventory from their client who has supplied the details and specs. The benefit for the broker being they are not liable for inaccuracy or faults and the benefit for the owner using them is its all out of their hands. They have no legal obligations, unless they are within the same trade. Win, win.

You will be surprised how little some brokers know about the boats they have on their books, or how to check their ages etc.

Peter @ Boatsandoutboards4sale ~ www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk ~ 07930 421007

[mister p]

Is this the same as being pis*ed of with Autotrader if the car you bought is cr*p?

[ericmx29]

Originally Posted by Ribshop

You purchased it through them not from them.

The year you may have a case with if the serial number is still clear, but then were you asked to confirm the information on the paperwork was correct when you collected?

Even if you were to win the chances are you would get awarded a financial settlement in costs between a 93 build and a 99.

why should i've been asked to confirm information on the paperwork (i wasn't in fact)? to me, when i asked a question the broker had a kind of obligation to tell me what i knows, and if he didn't knew he told so.
he was preatty clear about the boat and engine: 1999, for the engine , everyone one must admit that 6 years of difference is very important.

BTW, it's not like if i hadn't enough balls to give the name of the broker, i just contacted him to give him the newest info about the age of boat and engine, i just give him a chance to explain.

[mister p]

Eric, you misunderstood me.

I said that you were actually strong enough not to say the name of the broker.

You have the balls to be strong about your argument and not say who sold you the boat.

I respect the fact that you have the strength not to name the broker.

It was a compliment Eric.

[ppenman]

Why don't you have a look at

http://www.rya.org.uk/infoadvice/buy...chtbroker.aspx

It has a lot of information you may find useful.

[ericmx29]

Originally Posted by mister p

Eric, you misunderstood me.

I said that you were actually strong enough not to say the name of the broker.

You have the balls to be strong about your argument and not say who sold you the boat.

I respect the fact that you have the strength not to name the broker.

It was a compliment Eric.

yes, i totaly misunderstood your words sorry for that

[Poly]

Originally Posted by mister p

Would I be right in saying to the above statements of " you had etc., etc.,..",

"So did the broker.", but obviously didn't.

the broker wasn't buying a boat and therefore getting a risk, it really is just like estate agency the responsibility lies with the buyer

We had this recently with trailer bearings and it came down on the vendor that whatever went wrong with the item post sale was the vendor's fault for selling an unfit product.

there is an important difference though - there are specific laws on selling dodgy motors (and therefore trailers) in the road traffic act. Clearly that is irrelevant to boat sales.

I reckon it sounds like a misrep of product and selling unfit for purpose.

you may be right, but the rules on 2nd hand products are rather different; as are the rules on transactions between individuals - the sales here is between the individuals the broker is just a "deal maker / introducer / advertiser / facilitator".

Originally Posted by ericmx29

It's the previous owner, but what's difference, because is the broker who sold me the boat?

no the other person sold you the boat - the broker just 'brokered' the deal.

it's written 1999 not 1993.

that is your one saving grace... but: I wouldn't hold your breath, especially if you can't show the broker knew the information he had was likely to be wrong.

Originally Posted by ericmx29

why should i've been asked to confirm information on the paperwork (i wasn't in fact)? to me, when i asked a question the broker had a kind of obligation to tell me what i knows, and if he didn't knew he told so.

As per the quote above from B&O I would expect you have signed accepting his terms and conditions including that nothing he said was fact!

If he is a member of the BMF then I think they have an arbitration scheme but don't assume that common sense, or normal French business rules apply.

[mister p]

OK, but the agent then stays as the agent until the vendor/purchaser is happy.

The agent isn't absolved of his agency once monies have changed hands......if there is any arbitration they are involved.......hence the agency. I know that agents generally want the best of both, but here they need to toe the line.

[Dry Run]

As a broker I would say the following:-

If the broker has a proper "sales agreement" and relevant supporting documentation (MCA bill of sale, etc), then he is probably going to be able to successfully argue that he has done nothing wrong. However, we can probably all agree that he has at least been "negligent" in his duties.

"Due diligence" by the broker should have uncovered the confusion with the age of the boat and engine (that's pretty hard to get wrong), and if you know anything about ribs you would know that owners that have built in fuel tanks but run on portables probably are experiencing problems with water in the tanks.

I feel very sorry for Eric (although to be fair we have only heard one side of the story) and would hope that the broker would feel a duty of care to at least offer some help to resolve the issues.

I hope you get somewhere with the broker Eric, but I fear a legal route is probably going to be expensive and fruitless!

[ericmx29]

Originally Posted by Dry Run

As a broker I would say the following:-


"Due diligence" by the broker should have uncovered the confusion with the age of the boat and engine (that's pretty hard to get wrong), and if you know anything about ribs you would know that owners that have built in fuel tanks but run on portables probably are experiencing problems with water in the tanks.

That's what i asked, did the previous owner use the internal tank? i was told no because he regulary changes boat for his activity so he use a small portable tank, because we all know there are problem of water condensation with inox tank...

[PeterM]

Good brokers stay in business, bad ones don't.

I'd feel they were a very bad one - its not hard to date an engine and hull or to actually be honest. What goes around comes around...

[paul tilley]

Dont really know anything about this subject , but common sense makes me think the broker has miss sold the boat due to the question of the wrongly advertised age of the boat and engine . It would be simple for the broker to check the age and he should have the knowledge how to do this whereas the private customer may not .The best way forward would be a refund on what should have been the difference in value due to the age difference which could be used to help sort out the fuel tank .
But some brokers (only a few ) will not be helpful in this kind of matter as they are normally covered by their sales contracts which would mean they have no liability in this type of case although honest decency should make them want to be helpful .

[wavelength]

contact the trading standards office in the area you bought it.
Trade descriptions act.
1 1a Applies a false trade description to goods in the course of a trade or business
1 1b supplies any goods to which a false trade description is applied in the course of a trade or business.
The age of the boat/engine if wrong are the trade descriptions.
The broker is clearly in a trade or business.
The word is supplies not sells
The defence is that the accused used ALL due diligence and took ALL reasonable precautions to avoid commision of the offence. ALL, not just some.
OR something like that....its been a long time....thank goodness

I'm sure Poly will correct the errors

[paddlers]

Had all this recently when I took my boat in for a service & the dealer ruined the engine. Contacted trading standards etc etc.
Sadly the dealer charged me £470 to get my boat & ruined engine back & my only option was to go down the route of taking him to court with all the costs & no guarantee of success & the possibility of losing & paying their costs.
It was a well known dealer based in Skipton not some back street outfit so I would suggest you've little chance of getting anywhere if the dealer chooses not to assist you! Some people just want the deal & are not interested in helping customers. There are others (some on here) that I would have no hesitation in reccomending!
Caveat Emptor

[Boats&Outboards]

Originally Posted by wavelength

contact the trading standards office in the area you bought it.
Trade descriptions act.
1 1a Applies a false trade description to goods in the course of a trade or business
1 1b supplies any goods to which a false trade description is applied in the course of a trade or business.
The age of the boat/engine if wrong are the trade descriptions.
The broker is clearly in a trade or business.
The word is supplies not sells
The defence is that the accused used ALL due diligence and took ALL reasonable precautions to avoid commision of the offence. ALL, not just some.
OR something like that....its been a long time....thank goodness

I'm sure Poly will correct the errors

Again that correct in every sense but law, if the broker has put that disclaimer I previously posted within the contract I fear that will kill any claims as they've put the onus onto the buyer to fully satisfy themselves its as described, even if that means instructing a surveyor etc. The only way to then sue is if the broker has misrepresented the facts, proving that will be difficult

The buyers better advised trying to go down the moral route, where hopefully the broker will assist the buyer in getting some recompense. That could be leaning on the original seller (brokers client) to refund for inaccuracy (assuming they supplied the detail) or maybe forgoing their own commission to resolve the problems ?

I just think if you go in too heavy handed it may make them come out fighting, some times a little tact goes a long way!

Peter @ Boatsandoutboards4sale ~ www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk ~ 07930 421007

[paddlers]

Originally Posted by Boats&Outboards

Again that correct in every sense but law, if the broker has put that disclaimer I previously posted within the contract I fear that will kill any claims as they've put the onus onto the buyer to fully satisfy themselves its as described, even if that means instructing a surveyor etc. The only way to then sue is if the broker has misrepresented the facts, proving that will be difficult

The buyers better advised trying to go down the moral route, where hopefully the broker will assist the buyer in getting some recompense. That could be leaning on the original seller (brokers client) to refund for inaccuracy (assuming they supplied the detail) or maybe forgoing their own commission to resolve the problems ?

I just think if you go in too heavy handed it may make them come out fighting, some times a little tact goes a long way!

Peter @ Boatsandoutboards4sale ~ www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk ~ 07930 421007

+1

[C-NUMB]

Really bad luck and unfortunate situation.

Can't say I am a speciallist on the subject but here what I would do:

- trying, the nice way, to get even something from the broker. Maybe, just to get rid of You, he would compensate the value of his commission. This is a long shot and not very likely. I would focus on the wrong age(he should have known on the engine..), not the tank, the boat is so old that its impossible to proof when or where the damage took place.
I would not try any legal or further actions against him, that would only cost money and time, with a fraction of a chance off return.

Bellow is something I fully agree with. And the awarded amount might not be significant.

Originally Posted by Ribshop

The year you may have a case with if the serial number is still clear, but then were you asked to confirm the information on the paperwork was correct when you collected?

Even if you were to win the chances are you would get awarded a financial settlement in costs between a 93 build and a 99.

As a next step would try to approach the previous owner, again mainly focusing on the age. If he is decent, he might compensate little on the price.

If not, then I would pretty soon just try to forget the whole thing. The situation is not right or OK, but one has to Pick Your Battles......

Good luck what ever You decide to do.

If the boat has been insured by the previous owner, I guess he have reported an age to the company. This information might give an idea did the previous owner knew the real age of the boat or was he also screwed....?

[wavelength]

Again that correct in every sense but law, if the broker has put that disclaimer I previously posted within the contract I fear that will kill any claims

TDA case law requires any disclaimer to be as "bold and compelling" as the trade description itself. The examplle in court was a disclaimer re car mileages contained quite prominently within the conditions of sale on the sales agreement which was signed by the buyer. It was held that the disclaimer was not as bold and compelling, it had to be seen at the same time and was therefore of no effect. Which is why disclaimers re car mileages are on the speedo so that they can be seen at the same time as the trade description itself , and even itsy bitsy transparent unreadable ones dont cut the mustard. On a civil claim it might help. On a criminal prosecution under TDA perhaps it will - perhaps it wont. Still if your happy that whatever you do keeps one in the clear thats fine. But I dont have to worry about it anymore. My worries tonight are simply that the 3,000litres of diesel we are pumping into this vessel will fit! And that the crew has got the kettle on and the heaters up full cos its b**** freezing here!

To the OP ...contact the trading standards office for the area where you bought the goods. Its free, wont hurt and might help. If you dont try you will never know.