BUYERS BEWARE - SURVEY'S - ELECTRONICS INSTALLERS - RADAR - Page 2

hubris 1 · 08-14-2008, 08:16 PM

boats had no problems, everything worked forever, the gel coat never faded, the fuel filter never clogged, the teak never needed cleaning, you get the idea. anyway, show me someone that DOESNT have an issue. ill buy him dinner, and tomorrow.....his boat will not start. surveys........are for insurance companies. they mean nothing! you want a guarantee? i guarantee you the sun will go down tonight. when i doesnt,............ill pay attention.

Questsportfishing · 08-15-2008, 07:32 AM

People don't stand behind what they do. Company's don't stand by what they produce. People are starting to not care about what happeneds to thier friends or other people because "it wasn't them"... this time that is.. I rebuild old boats as most know. The old boats are very easy to rebuild because the OLD TIMERS knew that they needed storage and something that would last becuase of pride. they didn't have 1/2 of our fancy tools, pumps, engines or epoxys'. makes you think sometimes... All the electronics that I deal with nav nets , simarads etc... I know if I do something stupid on instalation the company washes thier hands of me and warrantee on such Item goes .. poof .. just something about another person not doing thier part kinda pisses me off. We are dealing with ethanol now and merc nor yamaha have filters to deal with the new fuel and it is killing our engine systems and costing people lots of money .. this sucks also but I guess it will take time to get some people rilled up enough about that even. there is no better thing than a job done right!

marlineer · 08-15-2008, 11:20 AM

Why did the Buyer accept the boat at settlement if the radar was not working properly? Did He inspect it prior to going in the office and settling? I am not pointing a finger or saying anyone did wrong, just curious. If I were buying the boat under these circumstances, I would have looked at the radar right of the bat. If it still was not working I bet it would have been fixed or valued-out of the deal. I'm sure the "Cheesey" broker was wringing His hands for the $.

LuckyLady · 08-15-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marlineer

Why did the Buyer accept the boat at settlement if the radar was not working properly? Did He inspect it prior to going in the office and settling? I am not pointing a finger or saying anyone did wrong, just curious. If I were buying the boat under these circumstances, I would have looked at the radar right of the bat. If it still was not working I bet it would have been fixed or valued-out of the deal. I'm sure the "Cheesey" broker was wringing His hands for the $.

Intermittant electrical problem, radar would power but would not transmit

Avenger · 08-15-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyLady

I didn't take a penny on this one, there was no co brokerage commission paid to me what so ever. I actually laid money out of my pocket on this one. Oh wait I got a nice crab cake lunch out of it

By far the best crab cakes I have had to date.

The radar was told to be an issue before we even stepped foot on the boat for the 1st time for seatrial before any deposits were even placed or a contract was written.

I hate when lawyers get involved it just makes everyone spend more money than needed. The consumer is right in this situation.

I know when you buy a used boat it is "As is" and is a "Used Boat" - If this came up 6 months later after purchase okay maybe, but it was a problem from the get go.

I wasn't accusing you re: the broker thing. It was a general observation.

Back to the RADAR, my point was that if it was a known problem I would have preferred to deduct it from the offer, or renegotiated if it was discovered later in the process rather than have the seller fix it.

Just my two cents... worth everything you paid for it.

I hope your guy gets it sorted out.

LuckyLady · 08-15-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avenger

I wasn't accusing you re: the broker thing. It was a general observation.

Back to the RADAR, my point was that if it was a known problem I would have preferred to deduct it from the offer, or renegotiated if it was discovered later in the process rather than have the seller fix it.

Just my two cents... worth everything you paid for it.

I hope your guy gets it sorted out.

I totally understood what you were saying from the start, sorry if it came out the wrong way.

Thats the other part of the problem. I contacted the selling broker and said " Hey I have a real buyer with money no games but this is his budget". The boat in question was 34k outside of the buyers budget.

Some people will take thier losses just to get cash in pocket for what ever their needs are. It was a crap shoot on a newer boat 3 model years newer, brand new electronics, lower hours the whole nine yards. The buyer came up with 10k more than he wanted to spend because of the newer electronics, model year etc.

The boat that we were previously on had high hours and needed a radar upgrade off the bat and a few other things. So a few more dollars to not have to deal with any of that was worth it.

Now it gets thrown back in our face that they took less than they wanted but they clearly made the decision to accept the guys offer.

The buyers offer wasn't based on problems or anything of the nature, it clearly was his budget offered to its max extent.

The broker told us the radar issue would be taken care of and apparently he knew that this was an intermittent problem and any one that stepped foot on the boat including the surveyor was told that there was issues with the radar that they were working on.

One can only take ones word that they did right by the situation, in writing or not. It was agreed the radar would be 100% operational before during and after and it was not.

This probably would of cost them 1k and now it seems to be game on.

I feel bad for all parties involved and understand both brokers involved didn't make a dime and the owner took less than he wanted for a quick sale. The buyer walked with a steal, but spent more than intended. I know the guy pretty well if the radar was said to be "As is" he wouldn't of bought the boat 110%. What the buyer is asking for is what the broker agreed to do from the start.

I can't blame him for going after them. I was there and I know what was discussed. If it was me and my boat I would be doing the same exact thing.

If it was me on the other side I would be knocking on who ever installed the electronics front door, with his insurance policy in hand, asking him to pony up. I have yet to have my installer piss any one off but I know if it was him, he would take care of it in a heart beat for being his mistake. We are only human and humans do make mistakes.

Tricia Lynn · 08-15-2008, 02:31 PM

This is my buddies boat and the seller is a weasel !! The judge down in Maryland will see thru him and make it all right with any luck. The guy should just settle and at least split the cost, it's going to end up costing him a substantial amount more if the judge sees things my buddies way. Lets see : Cost of new antenna, cost of lost wages ( He's a Dr. ) , cost of travel to appear in court ( NY to MD and back ) .

bac jr · 08-15-2008, 03:42 PM

Find these post of disgruntled issues a waste of energy. It is not going to solve anything for those involved by smearing the situation around on a internet site.

Would have been avoided had the buyer walked if a working radar was so important. Especially how it is said he got a steal, but spent more than intended.

There have been many well represented / documented plaintiff's lose their case.

LuckyLady · 08-15-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bac jr

Find these post of disgruntled issues a waste of energy. It is not going to solve anything for those involved by smearing the situation around on a internet site.

Would have been avoided had the buyer walked if a working radar was so important. Especially how it is said he got a steal, but spent more than intended.

There have been many well represented / documented plaintiff's lose their case.

It was not put here to smear anyone, the parties involved will remain nameless.

It was put here as buyer advice. It was also put here for electronic installers advice. Also I would have to bet that this will help more than just one person in thier own private installs the whole nine yards.

JB2C · 08-15-2008, 08:40 PM

Agree with Mary... she's just trying to give a head's up on stuff like this. Which helps all of us. This is exactly why we have to dot the i's and cross the t's on boat sales. Tough case. But if you stay in brokerage, it won't be the last tough one!

Whether the buyer got a deal or not has nothing to do with it. Offer made and accepted. So that's all that's needed there, whether he paid $1 for it or $1M for it.

Contract obviously says radar to be repaired. But it's up to the buyer to be sure everything on the boat is working to his satisfaction before he pays the balance due. That's why the buyer should inspect the boat to as much detail level as he wants. Or have his surveyor inspect it. But as with any survey, there's only so much they can/will find. They'd have to half tear the boat apart to really be sure. Obviously not practical. And hidden water in electronics is one thing they're not looking for or normally going to find. In this case, however, seems the surveyor would have paid very close attention to the radar and what was wrong, since they knew going in there was an issue. Did it work during the survey, or was that an item the surveyor understood they were 'working on'? If that's the case, then it fell to the buyer himself to be sure the radar was as he wanted it to be before he settled and signed acceptance.

Was there an acceptance of vessel form signed? If yes, I think they've done all they are legally responsible for and I doubt the buyer has a leg to stand on in court. Any decent (selling) broker would have gotten the acceptance of vessel signed. And any knowledgeable buyer wouldn't sign it until he is 100% the contract have been met to his satisfaction and he is happy with what he is buying. Once it's signed, the problems, if any, become the buyers. Going back a day or a week or a month later and asking for something to be fixed usually just isn't going to happen, lawyers or no lawyers.

However, there are times when something has been grossly misrepresented. The courts may listen then, but it would be unusual if they see for the plantiff. I would think there would have to be clear evidence of intentional misrepresentation.

No lawyer here though, so take it for what's it's worth. That and 4 bucks might get ya a gallon of petro.

JB

08-15-2008, 07:32 AM	#12
Questsportfishing Crab mustard is good Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ft Lauderdale Posts: 629 Credits: 2,198.7 Boat: 28' Custom Bertram Home Port: Port Everglades Best Catch: the one that makes people smile! Occupation: Sport Fishing Captian	well this is 2008 and looks like we are going backwards.. People don't stand behind what they do. Company's don't stand by what they produce. People are starting to not care about what happeneds to thier friends or other people because "it wasn't them"... this time that is.. I rebuild old boats as most know. The old boats are very easy to rebuild because the OLD TIMERS knew that they needed storage and something that would last becuase of pride. they didn't have 1/2 of our fancy tools, pumps, engines or epoxys'. makes you think sometimes... All the electronics that I deal with nav nets , simarads etc... I know if I do something stupid on instalation the company washes thier hands of me and warrantee on such Item goes .. poof .. just something about another person not doing thier part kinda pisses me off. We are dealing with ethanol now and merc nor yamaha have filters to deal with the new fuel and it is killing our engine systems and costing people lots of money .. this sucks also but I guess it will take time to get some people rilled up enough about that even. there is no better thing than a job done right!

08-15-2008, 11:20 AM	#13
marlineer Sit down Shut up And fish Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Jersey Posts: 590 Credits: 1,706.5 Boat: Intrepid 289 Home Port: Stone Harbor, NJ Best Catch: Bonnie! Occupation: Yacht Sales Suck! So I am puttin' out fires.	I have to ask... Why did the Buyer accept the boat at settlement if the radar was not working properly? Did He inspect it prior to going in the office and settling? I am not pointing a finger or saying anyone did wrong, just curious. If I were buying the boat under these circumstances, I would have looked at the radar right of the bat. If it still was not working I bet it would have been fixed or valued-out of the deal. I'm sure the "Cheesey" broker was wringing His hands for the $. __________________ I love a good WAKE!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-15-2008, 02:31 PM	#17
Tricia Lynn Hardcore fishacholic Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 81 Credits: 1,375.8	This is my buddies boat and the seller is a weasel !! The judge down in Maryland will see thru him and make it all right with any luck. The guy should just settle and at least split the cost, it's going to end up costing him a substantial amount more if the judge sees things my buddies way. Lets see : Cost of new antenna, cost of lost wages ( He's a Dr. ) , cost of travel to appear in court ( NY to MD and back ) .

08-15-2008, 03:42 PM	#18
bac jr Pit Monkey First Class Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: northeast Posts: 21 Credits: 1,250.9 Occupation: boat industry	Find these post of disgruntled issues a waste of energy. It is not going to solve anything for those involved by smearing the situation around on a internet site. Would have been avoided had the buyer walked if a working radar was so important. Especially how it is said he got a steal, but spent more than intended. There have been many well represented / documented plaintiff's lose their case.

08-15-2008, 08:40 PM	#20
JB2C Hide- My Wifes Logged On Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 132 Credits: 1,349.8	Agree with Mary... she's just trying to give a head's up on stuff like this. Which helps all of us. This is exactly why we have to dot the i's and cross the t's on boat sales. Tough case. But if you stay in brokerage, it won't be the last tough one! Whether the buyer got a deal or not has nothing to do with it. Offer made and accepted. So that's all that's needed there, whether he paid $1 for it or $1M for it. Contract obviously says radar to be repaired. But it's up to the buyer to be sure everything on the boat is working to his satisfaction before he pays the balance due. That's why the buyer should inspect the boat to as much detail level as he wants. Or have his surveyor inspect it. But as with any survey, there's only so much they can/will find. They'd have to half tear the boat apart to really be sure. Obviously not practical. And hidden water in electronics is one thing they're not looking for or normally going to find. In this case, however, seems the surveyor would have paid very close attention to the radar and what was wrong, since they knew going in there was an issue. Did it work during the survey, or was that an item the surveyor understood they were 'working on'? If that's the case, then it fell to the buyer himself to be sure the radar was as he wanted it to be before he settled and signed acceptance. Was there an acceptance of vessel form signed? If yes, I think they've done all they are legally responsible for and I doubt the buyer has a leg to stand on in court. Any decent (selling) broker would have gotten the acceptance of vessel signed. And any knowledgeable buyer wouldn't sign it until he is 100% the contract have been met to his satisfaction and he is happy with what he is buying. Once it's signed, the problems, if any, become the buyers. Going back a day or a week or a month later and asking for something to be fixed usually just isn't going to happen, lawyers or no lawyers. However, there are times when something has been grossly misrepresented. The courts may listen then, but it would be unusual if they see for the plantiff. I would think there would have to be clear evidence of intentional misrepresentation. No lawyer here though, so take it for what's it's worth. That and 4 bucks might get ya a gallon of petro. JB