I never did accept delivery of the boat. Racine Riverside moved the boat to my slip to "finish" the delivery. The only papers I signed stated that systems and warranty were explained to me. The entire Hunter Delivery Checklist was not completed.
I dealt with Racine Riverside because I purchased a boat from them before and was happy with how they handled it. I had no idea they would have failed so miserably at delivering this vessel. It was also a little easier as my trade-in vessel was already sitting in their yard. Had I known they would not be capable of properly setting up the vessel, I would not have purchased from them. And again, they didn't really give me a chance to "accept" the vessel, they just left it in my slip and told me they were finished.
I'm not sure why Hunter owner's are so accepting of a windlass that does not work properly. Maybe it's a lack of experience with other makes of boats. This is the only boat I've owned that had a windlass that needed "help". Had this been explained to me prior to the dealership so willingly taking my money, it might not have been as big of a deal. Then again, it might have pushed me to a different boat. I'm quite sure that is why it was never even mentioned that Hunter believes a properly working windlass needs "help" One of the greatest reasons for my choice of the Hunter 33 was the ability to single hand the vessel. It is well set up for that. However, it is not possible to steer the boat and "help" the windlass at the same time. On a boat this small, the only real reason to have a windlass is to make single hand anchoring possible. Hunter completely missed the mark on this, and I believe it is fraudulent to sell an option that "needs help", and not inform the purchaser.
As far as an attorney, I do have one. We are currently in the process of surveying the vessel. This does take time, and I am also trying to work with Hunter and Racine Riverside. However, with Racine Riverside's failure to return my emails, or inform me how they want to handle the issue of them delivering the vessel with contaminated fuel, they don't appear to be trying to work with me. As for the lemon law, it does not exist for boats, however other laws are in place under witch I am seeking damages.
I dealt with Racine Riverside because I purchased a boat from them before and was happy with how they handled it. I had no idea they would have failed so miserably at delivering this vessel. It was also a little easier as my trade-in vessel was already sitting in their yard. Had I known they would not be capable of properly setting up the vessel, I would not have purchased from them. And again, they didn't really give me a chance to "accept" the vessel, they just left it in my slip and told me they were finished.
I'm not sure why Hunter owner's are so accepting of a windlass that does not work properly. Maybe it's a lack of experience with other makes of boats. This is the only boat I've owned that had a windlass that needed "help". Had this been explained to me prior to the dealership so willingly taking my money, it might not have been as big of a deal. Then again, it might have pushed me to a different boat. I'm quite sure that is why it was never even mentioned that Hunter believes a properly working windlass needs "help" One of the greatest reasons for my choice of the Hunter 33 was the ability to single hand the vessel. It is well set up for that. However, it is not possible to steer the boat and "help" the windlass at the same time. On a boat this small, the only real reason to have a windlass is to make single hand anchoring possible. Hunter completely missed the mark on this, and I believe it is fraudulent to sell an option that "needs help", and not inform the purchaser.
As far as an attorney, I do have one. We are currently in the process of surveying the vessel. This does take time, and I am also trying to work with Hunter and Racine Riverside. However, with Racine Riverside's failure to return my emails, or inform me how they want to handle the issue of them delivering the vessel with contaminated fuel, they don't appear to be trying to work with me. As for the lemon law, it does not exist for boats, however other laws are in place under witch I am seeking damages.