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?????

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.

if you BUY it, seller pays.

if you DONT, you pay.

pretty easy.


"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

nope..i can't agree. when i buy cars or boats, the seller pays, IF I BUY.
if not, then I BUY.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

SNIP

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.

"Petey the Wonder Dog" wrote in message
...
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.


DING DING DING -- THE RIGHT ANSWER!

"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).

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.

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