Anthony M Bankrupt
John Wood
Anthony M Boatbuilder, went bankrupt on the 22nd of September.
This is a disaster for all concerned. His customers have paid vast
amounts for work that has never been done on their boats.
I have lost £25700, and have absolutely nothing to show for it.
Bankruptcy seems so unfair. As their are very few assets I do not think
that anyone will get much of their money back. As a sole trader, their
is nothing to stop Anthony M starting up again, and doing the same
thing all over again.
I reported the matter to the police, but they were not interested,
saying that it is a civil matter. My solicitor says that it is very
difficult to prove anything in these type of cases.
So I could rob a post office for a small amount and get sent to prison,
or I could start a boatbuilding business, fleece my customers for
hundreds of thousands of pounds and get away with it.
To say I am bitter is an understatement.
Drifter
It has happened before, and it will happen again, unfortunately. It
sickens me that characters who stitched innocent folks up for hundreds
of thousands are now advertising their 'New' Business so freely.
The same sort of thing happens in the building industry and in
wholesale. I have suffered both in my time.
I agree that bankruptcy is totally unfair. The law should be changed on
this as on so many other things.
You have my full empathy... though it won't help, I know.
Tony H
Brian Dominic
<jo...@sturton.freeserve.co.uk> picked up their glass of wine, sat back
and said:
>To say I am bitter is an understatement.
Having been through the same thing a few years ago, I'm surprised you
are only bitter. I was heartbroken (and it was a lot less money, in my
case, than many other people).
My sympathies are with you.
Brian L Dominic
Web Sites:
Canals: http://www.brianscanalpages.co.uk
Friends of the Cromford Canal: http://www.cromfordcanal.org.uk
Mid-Derbyshire Light Railway: http://www.mdlr.co.uk
Newsgroup readers should note that the reply-to address is NOT read:
To email me, please send to brian(dot)dominic(at)tiscali(dot)co(dot)uk
Chris Bennett
"John Wood" <jo...@sturton.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1127590886.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thank you John for putting in words what all of us who were conned by this
man feel
I only hope that he never manages to be involved with taking money from
honest people ever again
Chris Bennett
Also fleeced by Tony Walker ( Anthony M)
Hugh Allen
You have my heartfelt sympathy. I think I might acquire murderous
tendencies if it happened to me.
I think it should be illegal to ask for money in advance for any
large purchase. A contract similar to a house purchase should be the
method of buying a boat. The purchaser should pay a small deposit as
a token of intent and pay the balance on completion to his/her
satisfaction. This would mean that anyone starting up as a boat
builder would have to borrow the money for materials, wages etc from a
bank. Most banks would check thoroughly the competence of the
borrower, insist on a business plan and keep a check on their
finances.
Any person who starts another business after proving themselves to be
at best incompetent and at worst fraudulent by becoming bankrupt
should be subject to crimminal prosecution. It should be illegal for
banks etc to lend to anyone who has been bankrupted.
There isn't much that you can do. He probably has his house etc in
his wife's name. The tax man and the banks will get first bite of any
cherry that is left. It might make you feel a bit better to publicise
your plight and his name as widely as possible amongst the boating
community.
I'm not sure if this already exists but there is prodbaly a case for
the formation an association of boat builders which is funded by the
members and which can arbitrate disputes and compensate unfortunate
people in your situation much as ABTA does for holidaymakers.
Bob Wood
Hugh Allen <hu...@naddress.com> typed:
> There isn't much that you can do. He probably has his house etc in
> his wife's name. The tax man and the banks will get first bite of any
> cherry that is left. It might make you feel a bit better to publicise
> your plight and his name as widely as possible amongst the boating
> community.
>
> I'm not sure if this already exists but there is prodbaly a case for
> the formation an association of boat builders which is funded by the
> members and which can arbitrate disputes and compensate unfortunate
> people in your situation much as ABTA does for holidaymakers.
Doesn't the British Marine Federation have a standard contract which allows
for staged payments and for the purchaser to become the legal owner of
'stages' as the boat progresses?
--
Bob
John Wood
Yes, the contract states that the boat is the property of the purchaser
as the boat prgresses. However in this case, the amount of work done on
the 5 boats in his yard did not equate to the amount paid by the
purchaser. Without going into too much detail, some people had paid
£71000 in 3 stages, only to find that all they had, was a shell with
an engine in it.
I paid £25700, only to find that Anthony M had not paid the shell
builder for my hull. So the hull builder has a contract with the
boatbuilder. The boatbuilder has a contract with me that says Quote "
The boat and/or all materials and equipment purchased or appropriated
from time to time by the builder specifically for its
construction(whether in their premises, upon the water or elsewhere)
shall become the property of the purchaser upon the payment of the
first stage payment." ( end of quote) I take this to mean that the
shell belongs to me. However the hull builder thinks differently. The
matter is now in the hands of my solicitor, who is consulting with a
Barristor on the matter.
And to think, only a few weeks ago, my wife was worried about the
colour of the tiles, in the boats bathroom.
Meanwhile although he is bankrupt, Anthony M is still driving round in
a 4.2 litre Jaguar Coupe. How is this possible. I have to drive round
in a white van.
The worrying thing is, that when I spoke to Anthony M last friday, he
told me that so long as he is not a director, he could start up boat
building again tommorrow.
Something must be done to stop this happening ever again.
John
>
>
>
> --
> Bob
Chris Bennett
snipped "The worrying thing is, that when I spoke to Anthony M last friday,
he
told me that so long as he is not a director, he could start up boat
I know .....Lise and I have tried all the avenues as well John but as you
said..rob a bank you go inside..rip off customers and you are allowed to do
it over and over again....
Chris Bennett
JP
"John Wood" <jo...@sturton.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1127739809.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bob Wood wrote:
John
I'm sure there are ways of making sure people never set up in business.
What was that about two certainties in life?
Michael Clarke
news:dh90k4$rik$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> John Wood" <jo...@sturton.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1127739809.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...wrote
> snipped "The worrying thing is, that when I spoke to Anthony M last
> friday,
> he
> told me that so long as he is not a director, he could start up boat
> building again tomorrow"
>
I know of one well known boat builder still in business now that has done
this at least two, if not three, times already.
--
Regards
Michael Clarke
Email: michael...@skynet.be
Web: http://users.skynet.be/sky34301/
Drifter
I am a peaceful man [nowadays] and, of course, would never advocate
violence in any way.
But, it surprises me that characters such as these do not fear the the
two-by-four method of compensation.
Tony H
Dave Mayall
>Yes, the contract states that the boat is the property of the purchaser
>as the boat prgresses. However in this case, the amount of work done on
>the 5 boats in his yard did not equate to the amount paid by the
>purchaser. Without going into too much detail, some people had paid
>£71000 in 3 stages, only to find that all they had, was a shell with
>an engine in it.
>
>I paid £25700, only to find that Anthony M had not paid the shell
>builder for my hull. So the hull builder has a contract with the
>boatbuilder. The boatbuilder has a contract with me that says Quote "
>The boat and/or all materials and equipment purchased or appropriated
>from time to time by the builder specifically for its
>construction(whether in their premises, upon the water or elsewhere)
>shall become the property of the purchaser upon the payment of the
>first stage payment." ( end of quote) I take this to mean that the
>shell belongs to me. However the hull builder thinks differently. The
>matter is now in the hands of my solicitor, who is consulting with a
>Barristor on the matter.
A very wise move!
Without wishing to comment *too* specifically on this particular case
(as I don't have all the facts), I would comment as follows on a
hypothetical case, without in any way claiming that all aspects of
that hypothetical case are to be found in the actual case
mentioned....
If a boatbuilder represents to the purchaser that upon making a stage
payment he has acquired ownership of certain materials, he is plainly
representing to the purchaser that he has good title to those
materials and has capacity to convey that title to the purchaser.
If the boatbuilder, due to not having paid his supplier for the
materials, does not himself have good title to the materials, but
purports none the less to sell them with good title to the purchaser,
he has obtained payment by deception.
Now, none of this will alter the fact that the purchaser cannot get
either his money back (there is no money) nor his goods (the builder
didn't have title so he can't transfer it). However, it does change
the problem.
No longer is it simply a civil debt owed by a bankrupt who has no
funds to repay it. It is now a clear cut case of theft by deception, a
criminal matter.
At this point you enter something akin to a chess game. The
hypothetical builder possibly has two choices open to him;
1) Continue in bankruptcy. His debts will be extinguished in 12
months. He may even find that he doesn't suffer the usual issues of
daily life as many bankrupts do, because he will likely find himself
provided with accommodation by the state for a period.
2) Suddenly find enough friends to lend him the money to square up
with all the people he deceived. He will probably spend a good many
years paying his friends back, but will not have to spend any time at
Her Majesty's pleasure.
In such a case, the outcome will depend on;
a) How much the builder wishes to avoid prison.
b) How many good friends he has.
--
Dave Mayall
Richard
I am just ordering a boat so am reading this with great concern. Please,
please do keep us informed.
Don't know if this is of any help / whether you have been down this
avenue already?
Sadly, don't expect anything to happen in any sort of hurry ...
--
Richard
John Wood
hypothetical case there are two contracts dealing with the ownership of
the hull. Is it possible do you think, that a court might decide which
one takes precedance over the other.
regards
John Wood
brianH
"Richard" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:43385e23$0$38037$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
> JP wrote:
>> "John Wood" <jo...@sturton.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1127739809.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Bob Wood wrote:
>>
>>>In news:4tbfj1d13v7m1rn6o...@4ax.com,
>>>Hugh Allen <hu...@naddress.com> typed:
>>
>
> I am just ordering a boat so am reading this with great concern. Please,
> please do keep us informed.
>
Is insurance available to protect against these sort of things, I did read
somewhere that if you buy it on credit you are protected as the credit
company supports the risk
--
Brian Ancient Order of Sewer Ants
Dave Mayall
<jo...@sturton.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I wish the answer were yes, because I feel for your plight, but I fear
that the answer is no.
The basic principle of the law is that one cannot give what one does
not have.
If a builder didn't fulfil his contract with his supplier, he never
got title to the shell. That is where it ends as far as contract law
goes.
The second contract for sale to the end purchaser falls at the first
hurdle, because the seller never owned what he claimed to be selling.
In order for the second contract to be valid, a court would have to
find that there was no breach of the first, and I can see no way that
this would happen. Lack of consideration (payment) will void the first
contract.
There are esoteric ways involving forged cheques and bank drafts in
the first contract which would cause it to be temporarily valid, and
would shore up the second but it is VERY far fetched. Such cases
invariably involve a middle party who vanishes without trace.
I would also point out that in all this I speak as a keen observer of
the legal system of this country, but as they say on uk.legal "IANAL"
--
Dave Mayall
Hugh Allen
I hope you are right Dave but I doubt that an attempt to prosecute
would succeed.
When we purchase components etc. from wholesalers then there is a
clause in the contract which states effectively that the goods remain
the wholesalers property until they are paid for. We have often
sold these components in assembled form before we have paid for them
at the end of the next month. This is I suppose technically fraud but
standard practice and relies on the honesty/competence of those
involved.
When I was a creditor in a bankruptcy case which involved a similar
argument I was told that in order to successfully prosecute the garage
proprietor who robbed me I would have to prove an *intent* to defraud
rather than financial incompetence which would be quite dufficult.
In my case the rougue used a third option - he committed suicide.
JP
"Drifter" <thedr...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1127764505.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Perish the thought that anyone could ever remotely think I suggested
violence.
and to prive this point I suggest anyone feeling upset with any person
mentioned in this thread could look here
A Bullet With Your Name On It
http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,15418,00.asp
Dave Mayall
wrote:
>I hope you are right Dave but I doubt that an attempt to prosecute
>would succeed.
It would be an interesting case!
>When we purchase components etc. from wholesalers then there is a
>clause in the contract which states effectively that the goods remain
>the wholesalers property until they are paid for. We have often
>sold these components in assembled form before we have paid for them
>at the end of the next month. This is I suppose technically fraud but
>standard practice and relies on the honesty/competence of those
>involved.
There is an element of "de minimis non curat lex" to be applied here,
and in any case, the case would hinge on an ability to show that in a
particular case the finished product incorporated a particular
component which had not been paid for (as opposed to a component from
an earlier batch).
In cases where the item is large, easily individually identified, and
a specific undertaking to transfer title at a given time has been made
(typical of the situation with boatbuilders), there is an element
present which is absent from the example you quote.
That element is that in the case of the boatbuilder, a specific
undertaking to transfer title is made, and that this is invariably
presented to the buyer by the builder as a means by which he can
ensure that he is protected against the builder going under.
This specificity about transfer of title is IMHO sufficient to show
dishonesty if the builder doesn't acquire the title he purports to
transfer.
> When I was a creditor in a bankruptcy case which involved a similar
>argument I was told that in order to successfully prosecute the garage
>proprietor who robbed me I would have to prove an *intent* to defraud
>rather than financial incompetence which would be quite dufficult.
I would have thought that deliberately and specifically
misrepresenting that title would be transfered when the builder knew
that he would not own the title would be sufficient.
>In my case the rougue used a third option - he committed suicide.
<sigh>
Not a good outcome for anybody concerned :-(
--
Dave Mayall
Will Chapman
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:36:50 +0100, Hugh Allen <hu...@naddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I hope you are right Dave but I doubt that an attempt to prosecute
>> would succeed.
>
> It would be an interesting case!
>
would be related to the cost of the proprietor's skilled labour? If so,
couldn't they still be held liable to provide that labour (if the materials
were supplied)?
Cheers.......
Will Chapman
nb Quidditch