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

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.

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.

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 ,
(Gould 0738) wrote:



You can ask for anything you want. It's all negotiable. My comment merely
reflects the industry norm.

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner!

Chuck finally raised the point that seemed to be escaping those
bickering this issue, and that is there are no absolute terms.
Unregulated transactions are case by case dealings with "what is usually
done" being completely irrelevant from one case to the next.

As the seller you are well within your rights to price your boat
$5000.00 above retail book value, while refusing to pay for the vessel's
launch/sea trail or survey fees. However, the buyer is well within
their right to walk away. As a buyer you are well within your right to
get the boat for $5000.00 under wholesale book value, and insist the
seller launch the boat, pay for the survey, clean the interior, and fill
the gas tank before handing you the keys. Of course, the seller
reserves the right to walk away as well.

Obviously the chances of these two parties coming away with what they
want from each other are nil. So their choice is to move on until they
find someone who will meet their unreasonable demands, or learn to
compromise.

If a seller with any intelligence is really motivated, they will be
amenable to serious buyers, they will work with you to address
reasonable concerns. I've walked away from decent deals because the
seller remained absolute firm on the purchase price but:

1. Acted too imposed about showing the boat and answering questions

2. Didn't want to rig or launch/sea trail a stored boat

If someone really wants to buy your boat, they will understand the
effort you are undertaking to meet with them and show them the boat, and
will not take those efforts lightly. A serious buyer will meet with you
at the time scheduled (or at least call to cancel) and if they like what
they see, will often put earnest money down, at the risk it forfeiture
should they refuse to buy after a satisfactory survey or seal trial.
IMHO, this shows that they are serious about purchasing. I have refused
to show or sea trail a boat to inDUHviduals who:

1. Twice failed to meet or cancel our appointment

2. Failed act with courtesy and respect

As for the original poster, I've always thought when selling the boat it
was in my best interest to demonstrate the boat is worthy of the asking
price, so if my asking price reflected an operational vessel, I "paid"
to launch the boat and sea trail it for the prospective buyer. As a
buyer I've always thought it's in your best interest to have a survey so
you pay for that interest.

To those won't deal in these terms, the choice falls upon you. Accept
their terms, try to understand and work to address each other's
concerns, or walk away. Frankly I won't tolerate the "This is how it's
always/usually done" argument for these transactions. It's a weak
minded argument that I will not stand for as a buyer or seller.

With all the chest beating and name calling over such a subjective
topic, I thought I'd point the obvious out and hope I never have to deal
with most of you as either the buyer or seller.

Sheesh.

Bob Dimond

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.

Elaine 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 think the seller should incur the cost. Draw up a contract, if you are
serious about the boat, give the boat owner a down payment and if the test
goes well, you buy the boat right then. Otherwise if something fails, you
get your money back or negotiate a lower price for the boat. The boat isn't
yours until you pay for it, so you should not have to pay to put it in the
water for a test drive. I do think you should be held accountable for
purchasing if all is well. Good luck with your new boat!

Glenn-------- A vote for Bush is a Vote to **** Harry off!!

In article ,
says...
Elaine 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 think the seller should incur the cost. Draw up a contract, if you are
serious about the boat, give the boat owner a down payment and if the test
goes well, you buy the boat right then. Otherwise if something fails, you
get your money back or negotiate a lower price for the boat. The boat isn't
yours until you pay for it, so you should not have to pay to put it in the
water for a test drive. I do think you should be held accountable for
purchasing if all is well. Good luck with your new boat!

Glenn-------- A vote for Bush is a Vote to **** Harry off!!

What you "think" isn't how the world works. Not a surprise given your
previous posts.

The buyer is on the hook for the haul out/in, surveyor and mechanic. It
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

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.

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. Should the seller be forced to pay for a
fresh inspection for every (possible) looki-loo that comes along? If you were
the seller, you'd pay to have it checked out only once and then just show the
results to interested parties. That would seem very reasonable, from the
seller's perspective.

As a buyer, you want a fresh, current, unbiased assessment.

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.

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.