wrote:
The 2.5 million dollar judgement thread has a link to the details of
the lawsuit.

Here is the link again.

http://tinyurl.com/nq6wh

I spent some time reading through the document.

The boat that was heavily damaged was shipped back to Sea Ray for
repairs. According to the marine surveyor, the repairs were beyond
shoddy. They made the boat cosmetically OK, but did not repair the
underlying structural damage that made the boat unsafe.

It appears that Sea Ray can't or won't properly repair their own boats
when they are damaged. That seems rather strange to me.

If they can't fix them when they get damaged, how well built are they
in the first place?

If I was in the market for a new or used boat I don't think that Sea
Ray would make the list.


In my opinion, your logic may be flawed.

Sea Ray is in the business of building new boats, not repairng vessels
that (according to sworn testimony) were driven onto a reef at between
20-30 mph. Whether or not Sea Ray repaired this boat adequately has
nothing to do with the company's ability to build a new boat. Would you
refuse to purchase a new Toyota, for instance, because you learned that
the Toyota factory has few provisions for repairing previously sold
cars that had been in a wreck?

From another perspective, how many boats can be driven onto a reef at a
speed of between 20-30 mph and still be recoverable and considered
"repairable"? One might consider that a point in Sea Ray's favor.

A careful reading of the court documents reveals that the buyer wasn't
as screwed over, misled, or waltzed along the garden path as his
complaint alleged.

Important points:

The seller returned the boat to Sea Ray after the accident, and only
accepted it back into inventory after Sea Ray (the builder) affirmed
that it once again was up to OEM specifications. One could make a case
that the manufacturer is the ultimate expert on factory specs.

When the seller discovered some items over which they were concerned,
they hired a local yard to double check the work done at the factory
and paid for some additional repairs that the local yard recommended.

When the buyer expressed an interest in the boat, they buyer was told
that the boat had been damaged as the result of grounding and/or
collision and had been repaired. (The buyer and his attorney
represented the buyer as an "experienced boater.")

The buyer was afforded the names of the people who had done the work in
the local yard and encouraged to contact them for additional
information. (The buyer admits that he contacted one of the parties but
voluntarily settled for a brief telephone discussion before making a
final decision to proceed with the purchase). The buyer was given full
access to the vessel and afforded an opportunity to inspect any or all
repairs prior to finalizing the purchase.

Th buyer signed a statement acknowledging that the previous damages to
the boat were disclosed prior to purchase.

I'm having a tough time seeing just where the seller did anything wrong
in this transaction. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the
seller knew of any other defects in the boat- and in fact the seller
had paid to have previous defects corrected.
The seller informed the buyer that the boat had been damaged, provided
the buyer access to inspect the work, and even provided the name of the
local party who had worked on the boat so the buyer could make
additional inquiries.

About the only thing I would have done differently, if I had been the
seller, would have been to specifically encourage the buyer to engage
an independent surveyor prior to purchase.

If the buyer wanted to make his acceptance of the vessel contingent
upon survey, he should have hired a surveyor immediately prior to,
rather than immediately after, finalizing the transaction with the
dealer. One could almost conclude that when the very natural "buyer's
remorse" set in (and a few of the buyer's boating friends began
expressing astonishment that he would buy such a boat without a survey)
the chain of events that led to a big payday for the buyer began to
forge.

I think the seller has a responsibility to disclose anything unusual
about the history or condition about something being sold, and I think
that the court records establish that in this case the seller did just
that. It isn't the seller's obligation to save the buyer from himself.
If a fully informed buyer chooses to buy a boat that has been driven up
onto a reef and repaired, that's the buyer's perogative.