we need some direction on this one. I have a good friend who purchased his first sailboat last year. After he haggled and agreed on a fair price with the seller, he had a survey done, by a reputable surveyor (also listed with BoatUS) All was well (so he thought) at first while sailing he noticed the deck "flexing" around the chain plates, was told by others "nothing to worry about, a little flexing is normal on a sailboat" as the season wound down he noticed an area inside the cabin, where the lower shrouds anchor to the deck, begin to show small cracks, as he investigated he found a 12x12 piece of 1/4" plywood screwed into the area (actually the plywood was covered and painted to blend in) upon removal of the plywood he found an area @ 10x10 missing the lower skin as well as the core material. Now the further into this we (and now I'm involved)got, probing etc... it turns out that a lot of core material is missing. (I for one do not understand how this was missed during the survey) But wait, it gets better, I peeled back the vinyl hull liner to find a board @ 1x4 running almost the whole starboard side (at the hull to deck joint)this is not factory (no board on the port side) It seems that we have a major repair done, workmanship: at best "shoddy". At this point we are unsure of the structual intergity of the decks) Now that you have some background, my question is... what should he do? should he call the surveyor(since he paid for professional advice) sue the seller, since it is obvious that he knew of the repair and failed to disclose it. Does he have any recourse??? or does he have to take it on the chin and chalk it up to... any imput would be greatly appreciated. richJ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Stu
Sue!
Depending of course on how your state works he should have no problem filing suit against both. Many states believe there is a requirment to disclose know defects...and this is sounds like something a competent surveyor should have noticed/questioned.
Depending of course on how your state works he should have no problem filing suit against both. Many states believe there is a requirment to disclose know defects...and this is sounds like something a competent surveyor should have noticed/questioned.
Get a professional opinion first!
Rich: Get this boat into a shop and have it inspected for repairs. Call the surveyor and get his opinion. As we all know there is a difference between a law suit and collecting on the suit. Once you figure what it is going to cost you can determine if it is worth persuing (before you start suing). What year/make/model and size boat are we talking about here? What did he pay for the boat?
Rich: Get this boat into a shop and have it inspected for repairs. Call the surveyor and get his opinion. As we all know there is a difference between a law suit and collecting on the suit. Once you figure what it is going to cost you can determine if it is worth persuing (before you start suing). What year/make/model and size boat are we talking about here? What did he pay for the boat?
R
Rob R.
Contact Surveyor
Your friend payed a professional for his/her services. These services certainly cover a close inspection of the chainplate area. Afterall, the surveyor is working for you and trying to uncover problems of just the sort you are mentioning. That professional apparently failed to do their job. At the least, I would assume you are entitled to your survey costs back, and possibly a portion of the repair costs. The PO needs to foot a substantial part of the bill as well, as his deception put you in this circumstance. Between the two, hopefully you can recover 75 percent of the repair costs. Sorry to hear of this - I would be pissed with a capital P! Rob
Your friend payed a professional for his/her services. These services certainly cover a close inspection of the chainplate area. Afterall, the surveyor is working for you and trying to uncover problems of just the sort you are mentioning. That professional apparently failed to do their job. At the least, I would assume you are entitled to your survey costs back, and possibly a portion of the repair costs. The PO needs to foot a substantial part of the bill as well, as his deception put you in this circumstance. Between the two, hopefully you can recover 75 percent of the repair costs. Sorry to hear of this - I would be pissed with a capital P! Rob
P
Peter Albright
BoatUS referral
2 years ago, when I bought my boat, I got insurance with BoatUS. They made a big point about using an "approved" surveyor. Turns out the surveyor I used, has been hired by their claims department in the past. He told me the only requirement to be "approved" was to pay the BoatUS fee.
2 years ago, when I bought my boat, I got insurance with BoatUS. They made a big point about using an "approved" surveyor. Turns out the surveyor I used, has been hired by their claims department in the past. He told me the only requirement to be "approved" was to pay the BoatUS fee.
R
Robert W. Bonney
Document, Document, Document
It sounds as though you (He) do have a valid claim. It is very important to document all of your findings. The suggestion to take the boat to a qualified boat yard and let them go through it is a good one. Again, make sure they document their findings. It would be highly advisable to contact an attorney in your area. Once the defect becomes apparent, you have time limitations that start to run. Legal advice now could avoid problems down the road. The attorney can give you a ballpark figure on legal costs to pursue it and you can make your decision weighed against the value of the boat and the cost of repairs, Hope this helps.
It sounds as though you (He) do have a valid claim. It is very important to document all of your findings. The suggestion to take the boat to a qualified boat yard and let them go through it is a good one. Again, make sure they document their findings. It would be highly advisable to contact an attorney in your area. Once the defect becomes apparent, you have time limitations that start to run. Legal advice now could avoid problems down the road. The attorney can give you a ballpark figure on legal costs to pursue it and you can make your decision weighed against the value of the boat and the cost of repairs, Hope this helps.
Rich!
Rich: You may ask your friend to consider contacting his insurance company. They may fix the boat and take care of the legal proceedings.
Rich: You may ask your friend to consider contacting his insurance company. They may fix the boat and take care of the legal proceedings.
M
Matt
Rich, answer these questions for me...
In what state was the boat purchased? Of what state are the buyer(s) and seller(s) residents? Is there a finance company involved or was it a cash sale? What state is the finance company located? Was a written contract (other than the bill of sale) for the purchase of the boat executed? If so, what are the provisions contained therein? Did anyone own the boat prior to the most recent seller? If so, when? Year, make, model of boat? Is the surveyor that was hired to conduct the survey a member of SAMS, NAMS, and/or ACMS? Was the boat in the water during the survey? Was it hauled? Was there a sea-trial? Did the surveyor's work order or contract contain any statements regarding what is and what is not inspected? Did the buyer sign a "hold harmless" clause releasing the surveyor from wrongdoing in the event that the surveyor missed something that should have been inspected? __________ Claims against the buyer: (I would have to look at the applicable state laws [or Federal if there is diversity] before I could give you a definate answer but generally speaking...) you would have to show that the seller knew or should have known that the repairs were made (simple if he was the only owner). Further, would the seller's disclosure of such repairs have significantly affected the buyer's decision to purchase (or not to purchase) the vessel? The standard of review varies from state to state. There could be some issues of buyer responsibility, but I won't get into that just yet. Claims against the surveyor: (again, this depends on the jurisdiction, but generally...) It all comes down to the contract and/or work order. Were there any exclusions in these documents that specifically outlined what the surveryor was not going to (or could not) inspect? Should the surveyor have inspected the areas that have been repaired or damaged? Here, you would have to show that the surveyor was negligent in his duties as outlined in the contract or work order. His failure to uncover a problem that he should have found within the scope of his duties caused the buyer to incorrectly rely on his findings (the buyer thought he was getting a good boat). The good news is, if he is a member of the professional associations (NAMS, SAMS, ACMS) he can be held to a higher standard in many states. Further, he likely has professional liability insurance, such as errors and omissions, that can be attached. Back to buyer responsibility (which may or may not apply in your state): Did the buyer have a duty to ask the seller about damage/repairs to the boat? If buyer asked, did seller knowingly and willfully misrepresent the true condition of the boat? Did the buyer decline to order a sea trial, a haul-out, or another part of the survey that would have made the problems with the boat apparent? _______________ Answer these questions and we'll get into damages.
In what state was the boat purchased? Of what state are the buyer(s) and seller(s) residents? Is there a finance company involved or was it a cash sale? What state is the finance company located? Was a written contract (other than the bill of sale) for the purchase of the boat executed? If so, what are the provisions contained therein? Did anyone own the boat prior to the most recent seller? If so, when? Year, make, model of boat? Is the surveyor that was hired to conduct the survey a member of SAMS, NAMS, and/or ACMS? Was the boat in the water during the survey? Was it hauled? Was there a sea-trial? Did the surveyor's work order or contract contain any statements regarding what is and what is not inspected? Did the buyer sign a "hold harmless" clause releasing the surveyor from wrongdoing in the event that the surveyor missed something that should have been inspected? __________ Claims against the buyer: (I would have to look at the applicable state laws [or Federal if there is diversity] before I could give you a definate answer but generally speaking...) you would have to show that the seller knew or should have known that the repairs were made (simple if he was the only owner). Further, would the seller's disclosure of such repairs have significantly affected the buyer's decision to purchase (or not to purchase) the vessel? The standard of review varies from state to state. There could be some issues of buyer responsibility, but I won't get into that just yet. Claims against the surveyor: (again, this depends on the jurisdiction, but generally...) It all comes down to the contract and/or work order. Were there any exclusions in these documents that specifically outlined what the surveryor was not going to (or could not) inspect? Should the surveyor have inspected the areas that have been repaired or damaged? Here, you would have to show that the surveyor was negligent in his duties as outlined in the contract or work order. His failure to uncover a problem that he should have found within the scope of his duties caused the buyer to incorrectly rely on his findings (the buyer thought he was getting a good boat). The good news is, if he is a member of the professional associations (NAMS, SAMS, ACMS) he can be held to a higher standard in many states. Further, he likely has professional liability insurance, such as errors and omissions, that can be attached. Back to buyer responsibility (which may or may not apply in your state): Did the buyer have a duty to ask the seller about damage/repairs to the boat? If buyer asked, did seller knowingly and willfully misrepresent the true condition of the boat? Did the buyer decline to order a sea trial, a haul-out, or another part of the survey that would have made the problems with the boat apparent? _______________ Answer these questions and we'll get into damages.
R
richJ
information...
Matt, to answer your questions: >The boat was seen in a dry storage yard in ME. >The buyer is from MA, seller NH. >It was a cash sale, no financing. >The buyer gave a document with deposit to the seller that the sale was subject to a favorable survey. >The final bill of sale from the seller states "this boat is sold as accepted and is not guaranteed" >The seller was not the original owner, but was the owner when deck repairs were made. >The boat is a 1979 O'Day 27. > The surveyor is a member: A.B.Y.C
Matt, to answer your questions: >The boat was seen in a dry storage yard in ME. >The buyer is from MA, seller NH. >It was a cash sale, no financing. >The buyer gave a document with deposit to the seller that the sale was subject to a favorable survey. >The final bill of sale from the seller states "this boat is sold as accepted and is not guaranteed" >The seller was not the original owner, but was the owner when deck repairs were made. >The boat is a 1979 O'Day 27. > The surveyor is a member: A.B.Y.C
J
JC 2
Report it first.
At the very least I would contact the ABYC and SAMS and ask them about this case. Also file a dated report to document with both bodies that the licensed surveyor had conducted such a survey and had DE FACTO overlooked the damage/repair. I would consider filing a complaint/report with the BBB of the surveyor's community as well. This should not serve as 'blaming' or 'ratting on' the surveyor. The fact is that he did overlook it, for whatever reason, and that it was at least ASSUMED to be part of his responsibility to make it clear that this damage/repair was present and might affect the integrity of the boat. There can be no apperance of malice in simply reporting it to the appropriate bodies that govern/administer/oversee this kind of survey. Future buyers, sellers, brokers, and surveyors need to be made aware that these cases occur. If and when this is settled don't neglect to update the report(s) with the conclusion, no matter how it turns out. This will serve to show you as honest after all and further defend you against allegations of being malicious and/or hasty in reporting it. (BTW-- I can't see that this is really so hard to fix. Fibreglass the h*ll out of the area and refit the chainplates. It's done all the time-- it's just that it's an ugly job.) JC 2
At the very least I would contact the ABYC and SAMS and ask them about this case. Also file a dated report to document with both bodies that the licensed surveyor had conducted such a survey and had DE FACTO overlooked the damage/repair. I would consider filing a complaint/report with the BBB of the surveyor's community as well. This should not serve as 'blaming' or 'ratting on' the surveyor. The fact is that he did overlook it, for whatever reason, and that it was at least ASSUMED to be part of his responsibility to make it clear that this damage/repair was present and might affect the integrity of the boat. There can be no apperance of malice in simply reporting it to the appropriate bodies that govern/administer/oversee this kind of survey. Future buyers, sellers, brokers, and surveyors need to be made aware that these cases occur. If and when this is settled don't neglect to update the report(s) with the conclusion, no matter how it turns out. This will serve to show you as honest after all and further defend you against allegations of being malicious and/or hasty in reporting it. (BTW-- I can't see that this is really so hard to fix. Fibreglass the h*ll out of the area and refit the chainplates. It's done all the time-- it's just that it's an ugly job.) JC 2
- Status
- Not open for further replies.