Who usually pays to put boat in water for trial - buyer or seller?
vze3j5ge
of the water at our marina. We've spoken to a marine surveyor we might
hire who says that the engine can be tested to some extent on land but
that we really should put the boat in the water and check it out. Seems
reasonable - but my question is one about procedure. Who usually pays
for the marina to put boat in and take it out again in such a case -
buyer or seller?
Thanks for any help.
Elaine
Gould 0738
The check out is for your benefit.
You might consider negotiating for a fee split or reimbusement if you do buy
the boat, but the expenses involved with launching or hauling for survey are
the buyer's responsibility.
Glenn Deneweth
I think the seller should incur the cost. Draw up a contract, if you are
serious about the boat, give the boat owner a down payment and if the test
goes well, you buy the boat right then. Otherwise if something fails, you
get your money back or negotiate a lower price for the boat. The boat isn't
yours until you pay for it, so you should not have to pay to put it in the
water for a test drive. I do think you should be held accountable for
purchasing if all is well. Good luck with your new boat!
Glenn<-------- A vote for Bush is a Vote to piss Harry off!!
Petey the Wonder Dog
>We've spoken to a marine surveyor we might
>hire who says that the engine can be tested to some extent on land but
>that we really should put the boat in the water and check it out.
So I guess your surveyor isn't Harry. He's never been out on a boat.
> Seems reasonable - but my question is one about procedure. Who usually pays
>for the marina to put boat in and take it out again in such a case -
>buyer or seller?
If you buy the boat, the seller should absorbe the cost of the survey.
If you don't buy it, you do.
jps
says...
What you "think" isn't how the world works. Not a surprise given your
previous posts.
The buyer is on the hook for the haul out/in, surveyor and mechanic. It
is in the interest of the buyer to do these things, the same as when you
buy a house. If you have to rip a house apart or move something to find
out if the house is worth buying, it's your responsibility to do so and
return it to it's original condition.
Exactly the same with a boat.
jps
jps
@mchsi.comedy says...
The seller may split the costs but it's never assumed the seller will
absorb the costs even if the deal goes through.
jps
NOYB
"vze3j5ge" <vze3...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4125323C...@mail.verizon.net...
I never paid a fee for any boat that I sea trialed. I bought 3 of
them...and walked away from a fourth 'cause the seller and I couldn't reach
an agreement on a lower price after the sea trial. But I still didn't pay
for the sea trial.
Three of the four boats that I sea trialed were sold on consignment by a
dealer. The reason the dealer gets a commission on the sale of a
consignment boat is because he has to take on the responsibility and cost of
launching the boat for sea trials.
There is no way I'd pay a dealer to launch and sea trial a boat that he's
already getting a commission on. That's the reason he's getting a
commission...to put up with the tire kickers.
Gould 0738
become obligated to accept whatever documentation the seller *already has*
regarding the mechanical condition. Should the seller be forced to pay for a
fresh inspection for every (possible) looki-loo that comes along? If you were
the seller, you'd pay to have it checked out only once and then just show the
results to interested parties. That would seem very reasonable, from the
seller's perspective.
As a buyer, you want a fresh, current, unbiased assessment.
The reason the buyer wants to pay for the inspection/ haulout/ survey is to
avoid any conflict of interest. You want that surveyor or mechanic working for
*you*, period, and understanding that his task is to help you reach an informed
decision on the boat- not help his actual client (the guy paying his bill) sell
it.
If the cost of launching the boat for a test run seems prohibitive, you have
some real shockeroos in store should you take up boating.
Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
Normally it requires a deposit in escrow against the potential
purchase. Which is to say, you deposit 10%, or an agreed upon sum
which shows your good faith, then the launch, test cruise, inspection,
etc. can be arranged. If you decide not to purchase after, then the
deposit is returned less any fees.
The buyer pays for the launch and recovery, but in several cases that
I'm aware of, the fee was split once the survey was done and the
purchase price was agreed on. If you decide not to purchase the boat,
then you have lost the fee, but normally at that point, the seller
becomes more motivated so if problems are found, a formerly firm price
becomes amazingly negotiable (unless the seller is a complete idiot).
At that point, it's up to you what to do with regard to purchase. You
can have the owner fix any problems or agree to fix the problems at a
discounted price for the vessel. Depending on how big the vessel is,
your insurance company will require a copy of the survey and evidence
of any repairs before allowing you to operate the vessel under their
umbrella.
There are variations on this, but any reputable broker/yard will help
you through the process. Take your time.
Good luck.
Later,
Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."
Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653
Gould 0738
You're correct in the case of an acutal sea trial. The seller furnishes fuel,
assumes the risk of damage to the vessel, etc.
This is a case of launching the boat to perform an engine survey:
Quote:
>We've spoken to a marine surveyor we might
>> hire who says that the engine can be tested to some extent on land but
>> that we really should put the boat in the water and check it out.
If it's a survey expense, it's traditionally the buyer's responsibility.
Most buyers aren't going to be paying for an engine survey until they've had a
satisfactory sea trial. If the boat won't start or run for sea trial, it
doesn't take a mechanical genius to assess its general operating condition.
:-)
JAXAshby
what you think may or may not be interesting to you and your family, but what
the industry thinks is how things are done.
The buyer pays, or not as is his/her wish. But no cash, no splash.
JAXAshby
world. Have you EVER bought a boat, used?
>I suspect, that if money changes hands, cost for hauling should be
>borne by the seller
JAXAshby
horse hockey, bald one.
>baldycotton2@mchsi-------> .comedy <-------
>Date: 8/19/2004 8:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b4oai05g8re8m3fqo...@4ax.com>
JAXAshby
discussion here.
JAXAshby
>doesn't take a mechanical genius to assess its general operating condition.
on the other hand, if the boat is on shore, it is the buyer's responsibility to
pay for launching for a sea trial. If you are not interested enough in a boat
to launch it, you ain't interested.
btw, ***most*** squatheads who purposely intend to chisel on price use a
"survey" (paid for by them to expressly find vague, impossible to prove reasons
why the price *must* be lower.) Any broker worth his salt weeds those turds
out, or at least gets the turd to offer a much higher price than the owner
will accept, knowing the turd will chisel. Usually, turds end up paying above
what the owner will accept just because the broker is pissed at the idgit.
JAXAshby
>becomes more motivated so if problems are found, a formerly firm price
>becomes amazingly negotiable (unless the seller is a complete idiot).
snicker, snicker, snicker. so the broker wants the chiseling buyer -- whom he
despises as an incompetent turd trying to steal something -- to believe. screw
with a broker and he/she will screw you back. and he/she has seen every
screwer type on the planet. It ain't an even match. And it shouldn't be even.
That is the service a broker offers to a seller. Insulation from the
sniveling fools trying to steal.
Gould 0738
>"survey" (paid for by them to expressly find vague, impossible to prove
>reasons
>why the price *must* be lower.) Any broker worth his salt weeds those turds
>out, or at least gets the turd to offer a much higher price than the owner
>will accept, knowing the turd will chisel. Usually, turds end up paying
>above
>what the owner will accept just because the broker is pissed at the idgit.
I can't believe my eyes.
"Any broker worth his salt will weed out the 'turds' insisting on a survey?"
Such a broker would be sweeping out the grade school for mini-wage within a
couple of months
Tony Thomas
test run (and allow the survey to occur while in the water the same day),
then he is not interested in selling the boat. I would never pay at a
marina to have a boat put in the water so I can test drive it when the boat
is stored there.
As others have stated, buyer pays for the survey.
Seller pays to get it in the water for a test and the fuel (you should not
be burning much fuel on a test run of maybe a couple miles).
Now if your planning on doing a test drive on say Saturday and the survey
will not occur until another day - you would need to possibly pay for the
second put-in for the surveyor. You should coordinate so all occurs the
same day.
I have sold several boats and I have always towed it to the lake and paid to
launch for the test ride.
--
Tony
my boats at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com
"vze3j5ge" <vze3...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4125323C...@mail.verizon.net...
JAXAshby
talking.
>From: "Gene Kearns" ewke...@triad.rr.com
>Date: 8/19/2004 9:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <08lai0t5el5vi5bne...@4ax.com>
>You sort of missed the last part of that sentence, didn't you? You
>know, that part about, "...and reimbursed by the buyer. "
>
>Attention span not your long suit?
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.
>
>http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/cavern/ Homepage
>http://www.southharbourvillageinn.com/directions.asp Where Southport,NC
>is located.
>http://www.southharbourvillageinn.linksysnet.com Real Time
>Pictures at My Marina
>http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Rec.boats
>at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
JAXAshby
week telling us about the baby aligators found in Arizona.
JAXAshby
plywood rowboat.
David Hall
I find the question and resulting answers quite interesting. I must say I would
never consider buying a boat that the owners wouldn't make available for a test
ride...and a boat out of the water is not available for a test ride. That may
simply mean I would never be able to buy a boat in your world though ;)
I see it the same as a car. I am not about to pay to have a used car put on
the road so I can test drive it and I am not about to buy a used car if I can't
test drive it. If it is out of gas I would expect the owner to gas it up - I
wouldn't expect him to let me drive it 100 miles though. And before you ask,
yes I have (or actually am in the process of) purchased a used boat and I have
purchased three used jetskis ( as well as a number of used cars & trucks). I
have never paid a dime for the privilege of test driving even one of those
vehicles and have never asked the owner if they had incurred any costs in the
process.
Now an inspection is a different story. If I want a professional to inspect the
boat (or car) I would pay for that.
Dave Hall
JAXAshby
>never consider buying a boat that the owners wouldn't make available for a
>test
>ride.
it *is* available for a test ride. YOU pay to put it in the water. *if* YOU
don't have the capability to determine the value of the boat sitting on land
(where in fact ****YOU**** want it to be) then YOU don't have the necessary
skills and talents to use the boat you are thinking of buying.
do YOU ree la frickin glee expect the seller to pay to put his boat in the
water just so you can have a free run around the bay at his
expense??????????????????
>That may
>simply mean I would never be able to buy a boat in your world though ;)
nor any world with boats biggers than plywood rowboats.
>I have
>purchased three used jetskis
gee.
> I want a professional to inspect the
>boat
a frickin' jet ski?????
Steve Daniels
Deneweth" <gden...@ccogeco.ca>, to say:
<survey, que bono?>
>I think the seller should incur the cost.
But they don't, and if I were selling I wouldn't either. If you
are the buyer, and you need to hire someone to help you with your
decision, then that's on you. If it were an expensive boat I was
trying to sell, I might adjust the price to reimburse you for the
cost of the survey if you went ahead and bought it, but I'm
certainly not going to spend a few hundred dollars of my own
money to help you reach a decision.
LakeIzzy
if you DONT, you pay.
pretty easy.
LakeIzzy
if not, then I BUY.
"Gould 0738" <goul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040819191941...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> The buyer.
>
> The check out is for your benefit.
>
> You might consider negotiating for a fee split or reimbusement if you do
buy
> the boat, but the expenses involved with launching or hauling for survey
are
> the buyer's responsibility.
>
>
LakeIzzy
> is in the interest of the buyer to do these things, the same as when you
> buy a house. If you have to rip a house apart or move something to find
> out if the house is worth buying, it's your responsibility to do so and
> return it to it's original condition.
>
> Exactly the same with a boat.
>
> jps
Nope...when I bought my HOUSE, I paid for the inspect, but, forced the buyer
to refund in escrow if I bought. Virtually ANYONE would agree to that.
LakeIzzy
"Petey the Wonder Dog" <baldyc...@mchsi.comedy> wrote in message
news:b4oai05g8re8m3fqo...@4ax.com...
> Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
> >hire who says that the engine can be tested to some extent on land but
> >that we really should put the boat in the water and check it out.
>
>
pays
> >for the marina to put boat in and take it out again in such a case -
> >buyer or seller?
>
> If you don't buy it, you do.
DING DING DING -- THE RIGHT ANSWER!
LakeIzzy
"jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b8ee8494...@news.qwest.net...
All 4 of my boats had seller paid inspects (sale price reduced by cost of
inspect).
Gould 0738
>if not, then I BUY.
Well then, don't agree.
Bought many boats? (I've sold a couple of hundred).
Sea Trial is the seller's expense. Survey is the buyers. If the boat is being
launced for sea trial, it's on the seller. Survey is on the buyer.
You can ask for anything you want. It's all negotiable. My comment merely
reflects the industry norm.
Gould 0738
>inspect).
>
>
Fact remains that the expense was intially *your* responsibility as the buyer.
You can
negotiate anything you want beyond that, but it would be inaccurate to say that
it is the industry norm.
DSK
> If you're going to insist the seller pay for the checkout, you more or less
> become obligated to accept whatever documentation the seller *already has*
> regarding the mechanical condition.
I disagree.
It's traditional that a buyer pay for all these types of things. part of
the tradition arose from "yachting" in a climate where a boat being sold
is likely to have been laid up for the winter. But in the South there is
no reason to not have your boat in commission all year 'round, and a
boat that has been laid up for a long time is automatically suspect.
In this climate, a seller should expect to have to compromise with a buyer.
> ... Should the seller be forced to pay for a
> fresh inspection for every (possible) looki-loo that comes along?
If the buyer is willing to give demonstration that he's serious, and not
just a tire kicker, then it's the seller's obligation to demonstrate
that the boat is sound in all respects.
> As a buyer, you want a fresh, current, unbiased assessment.
Which is why you never never use a surveyor recommended by the seller or
the broker. Which is why you accompany the surveyor and look over his
should and ask a lot of questions.
>
> The reason the buyer wants to pay for the inspection/ haulout/ survey is to
> avoid any conflict of interest. You want that surveyor or mechanic working for
> *you*, period, and understanding that his task is to help you reach an informed
> decision on the boat- not help his actual client (the guy paying his bill) sell
> it.
IMHO if the surveyor is to be paid the same regardless of the outcome,
then why would he care who signs his paycheck?
I have never asked a seller to pay my surveyor (but thought about it)
however I have walked away from boat deals when the seller was
uncompromising about making the boat available for my inspection... ie,
insisted that I pay to rig, launch, etc etc, just for a look. In at
least one case I know the boat went unsold for a year or more afterward.
>
> If the cost of launching the boat for a test run seems prohibitive, you have
> some real shockeroos in store should you take up boating.
Agreed. But for the sellers out there who want to insist on doing it the
old fashioned way.... there are a heck of a lot of boats for sale out there.
Fair Skies
Doug King
David Hall
> > I must say I would
> >never consider buying a boat that the owners wouldn't make available for a
> >test
> >ride.
>
> it *is* available for a test ride.
As I said in my original post, in my opinion a boat out of the water
is NOT available for a test ride (or as others put it a "sea trial").
> YOU pay to put it in the water. *if* YOU
> don't have the capability to determine the value of the boat sitting on land
> (where in fact ****YOU**** want it to be) then YOU don't have the necessary
> skills and talents to use the boat you are thinking of buying.
Why do I "want" the boat to be on land? I don't remember that aspect
of the original post. In fact, the original post simply mentioned
a"boat". They didn't talk about a yaht, a ship, or even a cruiser -
just a boat. Now in your world, Gilligan, a boat may by definition be
some large monstrosity, but to some of us a boat is just a boat - you
know, one of those things you put on a trailer and pull behind your
SUV.
>
> do YOU ree la frickin glee expect the seller to pay to put his boat in the
> water just so you can have a free run around the bay at his
> expense??????????????????
Yes. If he wants me to progress beyond the initial telephone call
asking his sales price.
> >That may
> >simply mean I would never be able to buy a boat in your world though ;)
>
> nor any world with boats biggers than plywood rowboats.
OK Gilligan, get Lovy and the Professor on board and cast off, we only
have three hours ya know.
> >I have
> >purchased three used jetskis
>
> gee.
>
> > I want a professional to inspect the
> >boat
>
> a frickin' jet ski?????
"whadda maroon" - B. Bunny
Dave Hall
Glenn Deneweth
jps writes:
> What you "think" isn't how the world works.
Funny you should say that, I bought all my boats using this method and sold
two of them this way. You must live in a different world than mine, one
where following rules doesn't apply.
>Not a surprise given your previous posts.
Your just pissed because I don't appreciate the OT messages posted in here
on a daily basis by trolls like you.
> The buyer is on the hook for the haul out/in, surveyor and mechanic. It
> is in the interest of the buyer to do these things, the same as when you
> buy a house. If you have to rip a house apart or move something to find
> out if the house is worth buying, it's your responsibility to do so and
> return it to it's original condition.
>
> Exactly the same with a boat.
A house is not the same as a boat. The seller can be held responsible for
not disclosing problems with the house before the purchase. i.e.: leaky
basement, bad septic etc. Boats are sold as is and the responsibility is on
the seller to provide necessary surveys and paying for haulage. If the
owner doesn't provide this, I would tend to believe they have a reason not
to, and there is probably an issue with the boat.
If a person wants to sell a boat, it should be their responsibility to truck
it to the water to allow for a test drive. Knowing the conditions up front
will eliminate problems down the road. Would you not be upset if the seller
didn't disclose a problem with the engine and you pay to truck the boat to
the water only to pay a bill for $200 or more dollars? I would.
I did specifically say that the purchaser should be on the hook to buy the
boat upon a successful test drive satisfactory to the purchaser (everything
in writing with a deposit). I would in no way expect a seller to put a boat
in the water and drive it around a lake without having any intention to
purchase it.
Glenn<-----Bipartisan and loving it...
Coff
> I have sold several boats and I have always towed it to the lake and paid to
> launch for the test ride.
>
> --
> Tony
> my boats at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com
>
Tony,
When I hear discussions regarding the "cost of launching", I assume we
are (most of us) talking about the costs of a travelift or similar
large and expensive piece of marina-owned equipment needed to lower a
vessel to the water for a trial. Depending on the vessel and the
location, this can cost several hundred dollars.
I hope you didn't ask perspective buyers to pay you to tow your
Bayliner to the water with your Saturn...
(See:http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com) ; )
Regards,
Coff
jps
gden...@ccogeco.ca says...
> A house is not the same as a boat. The seller can be held responsible for
> not disclosing problems with the house before the purchase. i.e.: leaky
> basement, bad septic etc. Boats are sold as is and the responsibility is on
> the seller to provide necessary surveys and paying for haulage. If the
> owner doesn't provide this, I would tend to believe they have a reason not
> to, and there is probably an issue with the boat.
Not the way it works in the PNW. Most boats per capita in the world.
Where are you located?
jps
>
> "vze3j5ge" <vze3...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4125323C...@mail.verizon.net...
> > My husband and I are considering purchase of a used boat - currently out
> > hire who says that the engine can be tested to some extent on land but
> > reasonable - but my question is one about procedure. Who usually pays
> > for the marina to put boat in and take it out again in such a case -
> > buyer or seller?
> >
>
> them...and walked away from a fourth 'cause the seller and I couldn't reach
> an agreement on a lower price after the sea trial. But I still didn't pay
> for the sea trial.
>
> Three of the four boats that I sea trialed were sold on consignment by a
> dealer. The reason the dealer gets a commission on the sale of a
> consignment boat is because he has to take on the responsibility and cost of
> launching the boat for sea trials.
>
> There is no way I'd pay a dealer to launch and sea trial a boat that he's
> already getting a commission on. That's the reason he's getting a
> commission...to put up with the tire kickers.
We're probably not talkin' about trailer boats Nobby.
Karl Denninger
In article <MPG.1b8fbfcb...@news.seanet.com>,
The buyer pays for the survey and haul EVERYWHERE I've been.
You'll never get a seller to do this, as he has no way to verify that the
buyer can actually fund the deal, say much less is intent on doing so.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://boaterforum.com Talk about Boating online - any topic, any time!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
jim--
"Gene Kearns" <ewke...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vefci0lj1qlvk4ff2...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Aug 2004 02:37:13 GMT, jaxa...@aol.com (JAXAshby) wrote:
>
>>gene, you are dumber than squat. stay out of this discussion. adults
>>are
>>talking.
>>
>
> --
>
Way to go guys. You managed to take this thread south, and fast.
Seems like the question was answered in the first post. It now looks like a
thread of flaming and continued rehashing and arguing about something
answered long ago.
I also see the original poster has stayed away from the thread and frankly I
don't blame her.
jps
ka...@FS.Denninger.Net says...
>
> In article <MPG.1b8fbfcb...@news.seanet.com>,
> jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >In article <HqmVc.7184$%m4.12...@read2.cgocable.net>,
> >gden...@ccogeco.ca says...
> >
> >> A house is not the same as a boat. The seller can be held responsible for
> >> not disclosing problems with the house before the purchase. i.e.: leaky
> >> basement, bad septic etc. Boats are sold as is and the responsibility is on
> >> the seller to provide necessary surveys and paying for haulage. If the
> >> owner doesn't provide this, I would tend to believe they have a reason not
> >> to, and there is probably an issue with the boat.
> >
> >Not the way it works in the PNW. Most boats per capita in the world.
> >
> >Where are you located?
>
> The buyer pays for the survey and haul EVERYWHERE I've been.
>
> You'll never get a seller to do this, as he has no way to verify that the
> buyer can actually fund the deal, say much less is intent on doing so.
That's what I thought but maybe Glenn lives in an area that's different.
As the seller, I cannot imagine having to go through the time and
expense of a survey for anyone who could back out of a deal (most of
which are constructed to allow).
Doesn't make sense. I can certainly see sharing the expenses if the
sale goes through.
jps
Bob Dimond
goul...@aol.com (Gould 0738) wrote:
>
> You can ask for anything you want. It's all negotiable. My comment merely
> reflects the industry norm.
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner!
Chuck finally raised the point that seemed to be escaping those
bickering this issue, and that is there are no absolute terms.
Unregulated transactions are case by case dealings with "what is usually
done" being completely irrelevant from one case to the next.
As the seller you are well within your rights to price your boat
$5000.00 above retail book value, while refusing to pay for the vessel's
launch/sea trail or survey fees. However, the buyer is well within
their right to walk away. As a buyer you are well within your right to
get the boat for $5000.00 under wholesale book value, and insist the
seller launch the boat, pay for the survey, clean the interior, and fill
the gas tank before handing you the keys. Of course, the seller
reserves the right to walk away as well.
Obviously the chances of these two parties coming away with what they
want from each other are nil. So their choice is to move on until they
find someone who will meet their unreasonable demands, or learn to
compromise.
If a seller with any intelligence is really motivated, they will be
amenable to serious buyers, they will work with you to address
reasonable concerns. I've walked away from decent deals because the
seller remained absolute firm on the purchase price but:
1. Acted too imposed about showing the boat and answering questions
2. Didn't want to rig or launch/sea trail a stored boat
If someone really wants to buy your boat, they will understand the
effort you are undertaking to meet with them and show them the boat, and
will not take those efforts lightly. A serious buyer will meet with you
at the time scheduled (or at least call to cancel) and if they like what
they see, will often put earnest money down, at the risk it forfeiture
should they refuse to buy after a satisfactory survey or seal trial.
IMHO, this shows that they are serious about purchasing. I have refused
to show or sea trail a boat to inDUHviduals who:
1. Twice failed to meet or cancel our appointment
2. Failed act with courtesy and respect
As for the original poster, I've always thought when selling the boat it
was in my best interest to demonstrate the boat is worthy of the asking
price, so if my asking price reflected an operational vessel, I "paid"
to launch the boat and sea trail it for the prospective buyer. As a
buyer I've always thought it's in your best interest to have a survey so
you pay for that interest.
To those won't deal in these terms, the choice falls upon you. Accept
their terms, try to understand and work to address each other's
concerns, or walk away. Frankly I won't tolerate the "This is how it's
always/usually done" argument for these transactions. It's a weak
minded argument that I will not stand for as a buyer or seller.
With all the chest beating and name calling over such a subjective
topic, I thought I'd point the obvious out and hope I never have to deal
with most of you as either the buyer or seller.
Sheesh.
Bob Dimond
Tony Thomas
a 24' cabin cruiser. I tested a couple of 25' and 26' boats before I found
the 24' one.
And the original question had nothing to do w/ putting it in the water to
have inspected. It only asked who would pay to have it put in the water for
a test ride.
I would assume we are talking about a boat that is not on a trailer and is
probably in the 28' or larger range.
Now, I would not put the boat in the water for a joy ride. However, I would
expect the seller to pay to get it in the water if we have settled on a
price and I am going to get a surveyer there when I test drive.
--
Tony
my boats at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040819224444...@mb-m22.aol.com...
Tony Thomas
that.
--
Tony
my boats at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com
"Steve Daniels" <sdan...@gorge.net> wrote in message
news:0kvai0lqfrmhujipg...@4ax.com...
Matt Lang
> My husband and I are considering purchase of a used boat - currently out
> of the water at our marina. We've spoken to a marine surveyor we might
> hire who says that the engine can be tested to some extent on land but
> that we really should put the boat in the water and check it out. Seems
> reasonable - but my question is one about procedure. Who usually pays
> for the marina to put boat in and take it out again in such a case -
> buyer or seller?
>
This thread has sparked some heated discussion (surprise ;) and given
you many opinions.
Here is what I do with my common sense and some (not much) boat
buy/sell experience.
The seller should as honestly as possible show and describe everyhting
thats wrong with the boat while on land, i.e. the boat leaks a gallaon
the hour, it runs fine but the throttle linkage is sticks ... it had
such and such hull damage ..
The motor runs fine/ok/not at all or whatever it does... it burns oil
or gearcase leaks.
Buyer then looks at everyhthing and based on the information from the
seller and his OWN impression makes a decission if this deal for the $
works for him.
To verify the sellers info they go for a sea trail which the seller
pays. The seller will NOT go for a sea trail if someone is not sure
about buying the boat if the boat performs as expected (important).
Such sea trail shouldt cost that much for "a boat" if its small ...
and the clever seller will have this cost worked in the sale price
beforehand ;)
Seller assumes he will take 5 customers for trails and each cost him
$30 for gas&launch so he ups his sale price by $150....
The buyer then buys the boat and is happy he didnt have to pay for the
trail ;)
Seller is happy because he also didnt pay for the trail ;)
If the buyer wants the boat checked by a mechanic or surveyor that
should be fully his own responsiblilty to pay for. Seller has to make
the boat available and accesible for this.
Should the seller have lied which is discovered then its a different
story and the fight is on ...
At the same note: Dont buy boats from people who are openly dishonest
(its up to you to determine that).
This is just my opinion as right or wrong it may be.
Always remember common sense, fairness and honesty and the willigness
to compromise is half the deal. I noticed that people you treat fair
will lateron be willing to help which is worth more than a few $.
A good deal is one that both parties would do again under the same
circumstances knowing what they know after the deal.
I dont know what value boat we are talking about but if its a $30000
boat then IMO its really irrelevant to argue wo pays $50 for a sea
trail.
Matt
Tony Thomas
saying.
--
Tony
my boats at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com
"Matt Lang" <web...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:a0e12e54.04082...@posting.google.com...
Short Wave Sportfishing
>vze3j5ge <vze3...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message news:<4125323C...@mail.verizon.net>...
>> My husband and I are considering purchase of a used boat - currently out
>> of the water at our marina. We've spoken to a marine surveyor we might
>> hire who says that the engine can be tested to some extent on land but
>> that we really should put the boat in the water and check it out. Seems
>> reasonable - but my question is one about procedure. Who usually pays
>> for the marina to put boat in and take it out again in such a case -
>> buyer or seller?
~~ snippity do da ~~
>A good deal is one that both parties would do again under the same
>circumstances knowing what they know after the deal.
Dewd!!!
What planet do yo live on? I want to move there. :>)
Later,
Tom
Karl Denninger
In article <MPG.1b90061a4...@news.qwest.net>,
I can't.
The buyer is the one who wants verification. He's welcome to it, at his
expense and risk (e.g. if he breaks something in the process, he's eating
it.)
Now if the boat is on a TRAILER, I'll be more than happy to drag it over to
the water and take the prospective buyer for a ride for a short period of
time, if I believe he/she is serious.
Even if he's a tire kicker, he's welcome to come look at the boat at his
convenience. If I'm going fishing or diving or something, I'd even let the
prospect come and wet a line or ride along, provided I have room (that's
no skin off my nose and no cost to me), again, if I judge that he's serious.
But pay for his survey(s) or haul? Nope.
Tony Thomas
Noone has been saying the seller should pay for the survey. That is a
buyers cost if he chooses to have one.
And if a special haul is required for the survey (assuming the boat is not
on a trailer and there is a cost) then that would be payed by the buyer if
not negotiated.
However, for a test ride the seller should pay for the boat to be put in the
water (and if the buyer wants to have a survey done during the test ride
then that should be fine).
--
Tony
my boats at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com
"Karl Denninger" <ka...@FS.Denninger.Net> wrote in message
news:XexVc.30472$nx2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Karl Denninger
In article <FmxVc.56473$TI1.15297@attbi_s52>,
Tony Thomas <t.th...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Karl,
>Noone has been saying the seller should pay for the survey. That is a
>buyers cost if he chooses to have one.
>And if a special haul is required for the survey (assuming the boat is not
>on a trailer and there is a cost) then that would be payed by the buyer if
>not negotiated.
>However, for a test ride the seller should pay for the boat to be put in the
>water (and if the buyer wants to have a survey done during the test ride
>then that should be fine).
>
>--
>Tony
>my boats at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com
Assuming we're talking about a trailer boat or similar, yes. There is no
significant cost involved here.
If its a larger boat and is up on blocks, that's a different matter. Give
me a contract subject to survey and sea trial, and we can talk about it.
I want to see the buyer's skin on the table (at least the cost of his
surveyor) before I'm going to call the travelift operator.
Tony Thomas
of what has been said and negotiated.
--
Tony
my boats at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com
"Karl Denninger" <ka...@FS.Denninger.Net> wrote in message
news:6uxVc.5025$2L3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
NOYB
There's no difference. It takes just as much time and effort to launch a
25' center console from a dry rack as it does a 40' Convertible. Two of the
four boats that I looked at were in dry storage and needed a forkie to put
'em in the water. Another one was at a boat dealer that was
landlocked...and the owner of the dealership trailered it 20 minutes to the
launch ramp and sea-trialed it with me.
Only one of the four was already moored at a wet slip and didn't need to be
launched.
Gould tried to make the point that there's a difference between launching
for a sea-trial, and launching for a survey. What if your surveyor travels
along for the sea-trial? Is that a sea-trial (seller pays according to
Gould)...or a survey (buyer pays according to Gould)?
LakeIzzy
"Gould 0738" <goul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040820022011...@mb-m18.aol.com...
jps
We're talking about a: boat that's sitting in the water needing to be
dry docked so the surveyor can do his under the waterline inspection of
hull, running gear, thru hulls, etc.
or b: sitting on the hard needing to get to the water to be sea-trialed.
For a 28' and under that can fit on a trailer or get a forklift ride,
the expense and time isn't that bad but it's still usually incumbent on
the person looking for confirmation, not on the current owner.
When you've got a boat that requires a traveling lift or dry dock to
raise or lower, it's a different story. It can run hundreds of $ to
lift and splash. I'm certainly not going to do that for a perspective
buyer on my dime.
jps
4-Boat
"vze3j5ge" <vze3...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4125323C...@mail.verizon.net...
> My husband and I are considering purchase of a used boat - currently out
> of the water at our marina. We've spoken to a marine surveyor we might
> hire who says that the engine can be tested to some extent on land but
> that we really should put the boat in the water and check it out. Seems
> reasonable - but my question is one about procedure. Who usually pays
> for the marina to put boat in and take it out again in such a case -
> buyer or seller?
>
>
> Elaine
>
I probably wouldn't deal with anyone that wouldn't reimburse me if I bought
the boat. I guess that means BUYER pays, SELLER reduces sale price by
survey fee if, AND ONLY IF, the buyer buys. Like I said, I wouldn't DEAL
with anyone who wouldn't accept such reasonable terms. Now if this is a
$2500 boat, it's a different story.
Bowgus
seller's might I suggest written and signed permission and proof of
insurance (suppose the boat turns turtle, goes up in flames, takes out 1/2
the pier etc while out on that test run). And the seller of course can just
say it's for sale as is ... take it or leave it.
Wayne.B
>My opinion ... either party ... or even a third party (broker) ... with the
>seller's might I suggest written and signed permission and proof of
>insurance (suppose the boat turns turtle, goes up in flames, takes out 1/2
>the pier etc while out on that test run). And the seller of course can just
>say it's for sale as is ... take it or leave it.
=================================================
A normal yacht brokerage purchase contract spells out the risks and
obligations related to the sea trial and survey. In all contracts
I've seen the seller is responsible for the cost of the sea trial, and
for providing an experienced operator (normally the owner,
professional captain or broker). The buyer is generally responsible
for all survey costs including haulout. During the sea trial the
buyer and surveyors are essentially along for the ride and share no
risk. A typical contract gives the buyer a certain number of days
after the survey and sea trial to either accept or reject the boat
(subject to price re-negotiation). If rejected for any reason, the
deposit money gets returned less any survey/haulout expenses. All of
this is oriented more towards "big boat" purchases of course, and
things are frequently a lot more casual with trailer boats where the
launch and haulout expenses are minimal. It's still a good idea to
have a formal written contract however, especially if there is deposit
money involved.
vze3j5ge
really appreciate the help.
Elaine
Karl Denninger
In article <JwBVc.3065$dB6...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
There's nothing reasonable about that.
The buyer is selecting the surveyor, and has the benefit of the survey, deal
or no. The seller has no control over the surveyor or the outcome.
Let's not forget that most insurance companies will require a recent survey
on any larger boat over 5 years old.
Now you want the SELLER to provide you with a survey that you then use to
obtain insurance?!
If you are not sufficiently skilled to determine the condition of the boat
on your own, you're welcome to hire as many surveyors and other experts as
you wish, for whatever you wish, from a cold beer in the local bar to
$25,000.
However, as the seller, I am neither going to recommend a particular person
nor will I reimburse you for the costs of your decision(s) in that regard.
If the boat is on a trailer I'll be more than happy to launch it and take
you for a ride once I've determined that you're actually able and willing to
fund the purchase, and are seriously interested. If I'm already going out,
and have room, I'll generally let you come along with no obligation or
verification - why not? It doesn't cost me anything in that case.
Where it stops is when you want me to pay you to inspect the boat.
4-Boat
> There's nothing reasonable about that.
>
> The buyer is selecting the surveyor, and has the benefit of the survey,
deal
> or no. The seller has no control over the surveyor or the outcome.
>
> Let's not forget that most insurance companies will require a recent
survey
> on any larger boat over 5 years old.
>
> Now you want the SELLER to provide you with a survey that you then use to
> obtain insurance?!
>
> If you are not sufficiently skilled to determine the condition of the boat
> on your own, you're welcome to hire as many surveyors and other experts as
> you wish, for whatever you wish, from a cold beer in the local bar to
> $25,000.
>
> However, as the seller, I am neither going to recommend a particular
person
> nor will I reimburse you for the costs of your decision(s) in that regard.
>
> If the boat is on a trailer I'll be more than happy to launch it and take
> you for a ride once I've determined that you're actually able and willing
to
> fund the purchase, and are seriously interested. If I'm already going
out,
> and have room, I'll generally let you come along with no obligation or
> verification - why not? It doesn't cost me anything in that case.
>
> Where it stops is when you want me to pay you to inspect the boat.
I've bought a few boats, 2 airplanes, a bunch of cars, and a dozen houses
and rentals. I've never had anyone bellyache about picking up the cost of
the inspect IF I bought. Let's all assume a reasonable man standard here.
A home inspect is around 25 cents/foot, a car inspect at autoclub is under
$100. My last boat checkout on a 25 Searay was $250. Big deal in the
scheme of $20K for the seller.
Karl Denninger
In article <%RKVc.6746$LV1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
4-Boat <4bo...@yahoo333.com> wrote:
>> and have room, I'll generally let you come along with no obligation or
>> verification - why not? It doesn't cost me anything in that case.
>>
>> Where it stops is when you want me to pay you to inspect the boat.
>
>
>I've bought a few boats, 2 airplanes, a bunch of cars, and a dozen houses
>and rentals. I've never had anyone bellyache about picking up the cost of
>the inspect IF I bought. Let's all assume a reasonable man standard here.
>A home inspect is around 25 cents/foot, a car inspect at autoclub is under
>$100. My last boat checkout on a 25 Searay was $250. Big deal in the
>scheme of $20K for the seller.
There is no broker in the world who will accept this, nor any larger boat
seller, and no sane small one either.
You'll always pay, whether he simply adds the $250 to the asking price (and
won't negotiate lower) or otherwise.
You will ALWAYS keep your deals cleaner if you simply pay for those expenses
out of pocket. You're going to pay anyway, and you can expect that anyone
who agrees to such a thing will mark up the actual cost in their "best and
final" offer price.
Thus, it always costs you more to have the seller pick it up. You want me
to pick it up if you buy it? Cool; I'll do that. My "lowest acceptable
price" on the boat just went up $500 (unknown to you), which means I made
100% profit on your demand, and you have no way to even know that this
happened to you.
You think you're getting the seller to "eat" the cost, when in fact not only
is he not eating the cost, he's making a tidy profit on your demand besides.
First rule of negotiating purchases is not to muddy the water by building in
fees and costs that can affect the seller's price.
If you spring this "you pick it up if I buy it" thing AFTER we negotiate a
price, your deal will immediately collapse with any honest and reputable
seller, because he will (correctly) perceive this as your attempt to
renegotiate the price after you've come to an agreement.
Matt Lang
Hahahaha
I am not saying these good deals actually exist ;)
However if one doesnt sell with the intend to rip the other paty as
much as possible then its easier to make deals
Matt
Matt Lang
> You are correct. That is what several people including myself have been
> saying.
:)
With some filtering applied there is lots of great information in this newsgroup
Matt
Short Wave Sportfishing
>Short Wave Sportfishing <tomf123r...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<pq6di01vhhi24cqc5...@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Aug 2004 17:05:41 -0700, web...@shaw.ca (Matt Lang) wrote:
>>
>> >vze3j5ge <vze3...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message news:<4125323C...@mail.verizon.net>...
>> >> My husband and I are considering purchase of a used boat - currently out
>> >> of the water at our marina. We've spoken to a marine surveyor we might
>> >> hire who says that the engine can be tested to some extent on land but
>> >> that we really should put the boat in the water and check it out. Seems
>> >> reasonable - but my question is one about procedure. Who usually pays
>> >> for the marina to put boat in and take it out again in such a case -
>> >> buyer or seller?
>>
>> ~~ snippity do da ~~
>>
>> >A good deal is one that both parties would do again under the same
>> >circumstances knowing what they know after the deal.
>>
>> Dewd!!!
>>
>> What planet do yo live on? I want to move there. :>)
>
>
>Hahahaha
>
>I am not saying these good deals actually exist ;)
>
>However if one doesnt sell with the intend to rip the other paty as
>much as possible then its easier to make deals
10-4
Later,
Tom
4-Boat
You're free to negotiate anyway your want.
Whether you're a procurement negotiator or a labor negotiator, the BUYER
always negotiates ISSUE by ISSUE and the SELLER always attempts to negotiate
a package. As the BUYER, I'm going after one thing after another, the FIRST
being that I want you to commit to a less than 1% expenditure on an
inspection IF, AND ONLY IF, I buy the boat. If you won't you're
unreasonable. If you do, then you have some OWNERSHIP in the outcome,
especially if I let you have some voice in choosing a mutually agreed upon
inspector. Either way, I win or I walk away because you're too difficult to
work with, and I'd rather know that now than later. And by the way, I've
been in Fortune 200s my entire life, managing spends from $250M to $4B
annual. I've been around the block a few times in major negotiations as the
BUYER.
As I said, you can do what you want. That's fine, it's your style.
But I would still counsel the folks in the original note to just walk away
if they can't get some sort of recognition by the seller of the costs of the
survey. I simply don't want to deal with unreasonable sellers...why should
I?
4-Boat
"vze3j5ge" <vze3...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4127633F...@mail.verizon.net...
NOYB
> We're talking about a: boat that's sitting in the water needing to be
> dry docked so the surveyor can do his under the waterline inspection of
> hull, running gear, thru hulls, etc.
>
> or b: sitting on the hard needing to get to the water to be sea-trialed.
No, that's wrong. The original post said this:
"My husband and I are considering purchase of a used boat - currently out of
the water at our marina. "
Did you catch that part? "...currently out of the water..."
>
> For a 28' and under that can fit on a trailer or get a forklift ride,
> the expense and time isn't that bad but it's still usually incumbent on
> the person looking for confirmation, not on the current owner.
>
No it's not. If you buy a boat, you're entitled to a sea trial. It's the
seller's responsibility to see to it that the boat is in the water so that
prospective buyer can sea trial it. Of the 4 boats that I sea-trialed, I
bought three of them. One of them had problems, and the owner wouldn't
budge on the price after the sea-trial. Each time (except for one), I put
down a deposit (usually $500 or $1000) prior to the sea-trial. After the
sea-trial, the money was either applied to the purchase, or refunded if the
boat didn't perform as advertised.
> When you've got a boat that requires a traveling lift or dry dock to
> raise or lower, it's a different story. It can run hundreds of $ to
> lift and splash. I'm certainly not going to do that for a perspective
> buyer on my dime.
Many marinas in my area either sell the boat on consignment for owner, or
write into the owner's storage contract that the marina is entitled to 10%
of the sales price of the boat if it's sold from their premises. It's not
the owner's dime that is paying for the launch...it's usually the marina's
money...and, many times, they're compensated for it via the commission they
receive on the sale.
Karl Denninger
In article <zpQVc.5134$dB6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
You're not dealing with an "unreasonable seller".
You want an absolute out if you don't like the results of the survey
(irrespective of why) but you want the seller to pay for it.
As I said, you're welcome to make such a demand. If you do it before you
negotiate a price, then you will simply find that the seller adds the cost
to the lowest price he will accept, plus some margin of profit.
If you do it AFTER you have negotiated a price, piecemeal, then you are
dealing in bad faith.
At the point EITHER SIDE attempts to deal in bad faith the transaction is
simply not going to happen the party who is not acting in bad faith has even
half a brain.
BTW, I employed people like you. The first time you attempted to play this
kind of game with a supplier to my firm - negotiating a price and then
taking a second bite at the apple in bad faith - you would have been
fired for cause.
Dishonesty was one of the quickest ways to get canned around my shop.
BllFs6
something....
Seller says boat is in conditon A (lots of variables here) for price B....
Buyer says....hey if it actually IS in condition A, you've got a deal for price
B!
So, buyer brings in "expert" to look things over....
Expert says no friggin way this boat is in condition A, its a floating terd
(for whatever particular reason).....
Who pays for expert in the first place and then who pays for expert after buyer
smartly says no deal?
Now, if seller pays for expert in the first place, it could certainly be
conflict of interest....even if buyer is the person who choose the expert....
If buyer pays and chooses the expert in the first place...why should the buyer
shoulder the cost of the expert when its the seller who was most likely trying
to pull the wool over someones eyes?
just a thought and question....
take care
Blll
Wayne.B
>If buyer pays and chooses the expert in the first place...why should the buyer
>shoulder the cost of the expert when its the seller who was most likely trying
>to pull the wool over someones eyes?
>
>just a thought and question....
========================================
Typically the buyer does his own due diligence based on appearance,
representations and maybe a cold start prior to making the offer. The
survey process is where the experts verify condition to the buyer (at
his expense). Following the survey the buyer can either walk away
from the deal or renegotiate it. I have never paid for a survey that
did not pay for itself in a renogtiated price.
A good surveyor will frequently find issues that the present owner is
not even aware of.
4-Boat
reimburse if buyer buys. If it's a floating turd, buyer is hosed.
"BllFs6" <bll...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040822225132...@mb-m27.aol.com...
Matt Lang
> Here is point nobody has seemed to explicity address.....but maybe I missed
> something....
>
>
> Seller says boat is in conditon A (lots of variables here) for price B....
>
> Buyer says....hey if it actually IS in condition A, you've got a deal for price
> B!
>
> So, buyer brings in "expert" to look things over....
>
> Expert says no friggin way this boat is in condition A, its a floating terd
> (for whatever particular reason).....
>
> Who pays for expert in the first place and then who pays for expert after buyer
> smartly says no deal?
I think this is one of these cases where its a case of money spent on
learning about identifying liars and crooks or boat inspections ...
If a lot of mr may not be worth the hassle as there is little to
prove.
Matt
Short Wave Sportfishing
When you by a house, you pay for the inspector.
Same concept - you pay for the surveyor.
It's not hard to understand. It's for your own protection.
Later,
Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."
Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653
Cleesturtle1
<piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It should be obvious that "Jim's" goal here is to trash any and all
>on-topic messages and responses, so he can fulfil his goal of making
>rec.boats useless for any seeking information.
You are such a complete moron! You are the biggest contributor to
useless information here. You are virtually solely responsible for
making this group the mess of off-topic trash that it is. It is your
trash, lies, fake storie, and most of all...off-topic post we all have
to wade thru tomake use of this group.
What an idiot you are...
>Sometime today I'm
>putting the dickhead in my bozo bin, along with the other idiots whose
>life consists of kissing George W. Bush's butt.
Great. You kill file all the folks who dont agree with you, and those
who post on-topic. Soon your list will be you, and the other four
lemmings who coose to follow your rude and inconsidrate ways.
Good ridence asshole...
Phil Petrucci
> IMHO if the surveyor is to be paid the same regardless of the outcome,
> then why would he care who signs his paycheck?
Doug - this is because SOME surveyors are very close with SOME brokers. Some brokers have a "go to" surveyor that they use/recommend (eps for out of town purchases). The surveyor knows the broker is helping them get business and wants to maintain that relationship.
So while, most people are honest, a conflict of interest can develop.
