Gould 0738 wrote:
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

I think the seller should incur the cost.

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.

I think the seller should incur the cost.

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.

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

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. 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?????

(JAXAshby) wrote in message ...
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

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:11:53 -0400, something compelled "Glenn
Deneweth" , 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.

Post did not ask who paid for the survey. Obviously the purchaser pays for
that.

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

"Steve Daniels" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:11:53 -0400, something compelled "Glenn
Deneweth" , 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.

Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
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.

In article , baldycotton2
@mchsi.comedy says...
Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
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.

The seller may split the costs but it's never assumed the seller will
absorb the costs even if the deal goes through.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article , baldycotton2
@mchsi.comedy says...
Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
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.

The seller may split the costs but it's never assumed the seller will
absorb the costs even if the deal goes through.

jps


All 4 of my boats had seller paid inspects (sale price reduced by cost of
inspect).