On 20 Aug 2004 17:05:41 -0700, (Matt Lang) wrote:

vze3j5ge wrote in message ...
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

In article FmxVc.56473$TI1.15297@attbi_s52,
Tony Thomas 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.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) 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!

Agreed. The deal should be settled and the sea trial should be confirmation
of what has been said and negotiated.

--
Tony
my boats at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com

"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
nk.net...

In article FmxVc.56473$TI1.15297@attbi_s52,
Tony Thomas 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.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) 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!

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

"vze3j5ge" wrote in message
...
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?


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.

We're probably not talkin' about trailer boats Nobby.

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)?

nope, only bought 4 for myself. quite a few for most folks...


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
nope..i can't agree. when i buy cars or boats, the seller pays, IF I
BUY.
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.

In article , says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

"vze3j5ge" wrote in message
...
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?


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.

We're probably not talkin' about trailer boats Nobby.

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)?

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

"vze3j5ge" wrote in message
...
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?

Thanks for any help.

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.

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.


"vze3j5ge" wrote in message
...
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?

Thanks for any help.

Elaine

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:00:03 GMT, "Bowgus" wrote:
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.

Thanks to all for your prompt, thoughtful and informative answers. We
really appreciate the help.

Elaine

In article ,
4-Boat wrote:

"vze3j5ge" wrote in message
...
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?

Thanks for any help.

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.

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.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) 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!

...

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.

In article ,
4-Boat 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.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) 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!

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 17:05:41 -0700, (Matt Lang) wrote:

vze3j5ge wrote in message ...
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


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

"Tony Thomas" wrote in message news:SVwVc.199231$eM2.173171@attbi_s51...
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

On 21 Aug 2004 10:36:16 -0700, (Matt Lang) wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 17:05:41 -0700, (Matt Lang) wrote:

vze3j5ge wrote in message ...
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

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.

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?




--
--
Karl Denninger ) 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!

It seems like you got an answer that was ... DO WHATEVER YOU CAN.

"vze3j5ge" wrote in message
...
Thanks to all for your prompt, thoughtful and informative answers. We
really appreciate the help.

Elaine

"jps" wrote in message
...

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.

In article ,
4-Boat wrote:


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.

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?

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.

-
--
Karl Denninger ) 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!

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?

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

On 23 Aug 2004 02:51:32 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:

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.

I mostly agree. Buyer pays, with the understanding that seller will
reimburse if buyer buys. If it's a floating turd, buyer is hosed.


"BllFs6" wrote in message
...
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?

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

On 23 Aug 2004 02:51:32 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:

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?

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....

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

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:27:41 -0400, Harry Krause
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...