I can think of several ways to manage swaps, especially if you consider
time warping. I mean, if you want to sail in cool Canada, for instance,
during a good season, but I don't want your boat during the same time,
'cause the season is way sweaty, then we need a contractually binding
agreement of one sort or another.

It's called an exchange system, something like money, and the simplest
of such schemes actually uses money, if meeting at the mall to swap
trailers isn't agreeable.

Pay me now to use my boat, I'll pay you later, maybe, to use yours,
kinda thing, as opposed to letters of agreement, failed arrangements,
lawsuits to recover losses, etc.

As soon as monetary value is assessed for the purpose of time shifted
swaps and compensation in the event of failed completion of a time
shifted swap, the transaction becomes taxable, not barter any more, if
memory serves. Now Iwe both need legal advice? It'll never come to
pass.

It could be a lot easier to look after, allows you to use your boat as
a business, so you can write off expenses, etc.

The question of liability for damages is always a biggie, and one way
to handle that is to agree the rentor is liable for any damages,
require a refendable damage deposit, and trust that he will agreeably
provide to cover himself if he damages the boat or another's property,
while the owner keeps coverage against damages caused by his own
personal negligence. The boat or property is rented as is, where is,
with all known shortcomings disclosed to be the exlusive responsibility
of the rentor, etc, liable for damage beyond FWAT, theft if not
returned, in good faith, etc.

Reputable identification of the parties becomes a prime ingredient in
any such successful arrangement, along with suitable weather clauses,
etc. You can "what if" yourself to death, if you worry about it too
much, though.

Several people using this newsgroup have made such arrangements and
have, I believe, been happy with them overall, myself included.

boatswap.com requires / suggests the owner to provide insurance. I
think this should be the responsibility of the rentor. If it winds up
in court, it will be anyway.

From the sites cited, there seems a small market in all of this. Small
markets often grow.

Terry K