Who usually pays to put boat in water for trial - buyer or seller?
 

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.

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!!

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 ,
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

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

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.

"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.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:03:56 GMT, vze3j5ge
wrote:

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.

Normally it requires a deposit in escrow against the potential
purchase. Which is to say, you deposit 10%, or an agreed upon sum
which shows your good faith, then the launch, test cruise, inspection,
etc. can be arranged. If you decide not to purchase after, then the
deposit is returned less any fees.

The buyer pays for the launch and recovery, but in several cases that
I'm aware of, the fee was split once the survey was done and the
purchase price was agreed on. If you decide not to purchase the boat,
then you have lost the fee, but normally at that point, the seller
becomes more motivated so if problems are found, a formerly firm price
becomes amazingly negotiable (unless the seller is a complete idiot).

At that point, it's up to you what to do with regard to purchase. You
can have the owner fix any problems or agree to fix the problems at a
discounted price for the vessel. Depending on how big the vessel is,
your insurance company will require a copy of the survey and evidence
of any repairs before allowing you to operate the vessel under their
umbrella.

There are variations on this, but any reputable broker/yard will help
you through the process. Take your time.

Good luck.

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

I never paid a fee for any boat that I sea trialed.

You're correct in the case of an acutal sea trial. The seller furnishes fuel,
assumes the risk of damage to the vessel, etc.

This is a case of launching the boat to perform an engine survey:

Quote:

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.

If it's a survey expense, it's traditionally the buyer's responsibility.

Most buyers aren't going to be paying for an engine survey until they've had a
satisfactory sea trial. If the boat won't start or run for sea trial, it
doesn't take a mechanical genius to assess its general operating condition.
:-)

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.

If you buy the boat, the seller should absorbe the cost of the survey.

horse hockey, bald one.

baldycotton2@mchsi------- .comedy -------
Date: 8/19/2004 8:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

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.

dood, you bought rental rowboats. that is not the type of boat under
discussion here.

From: "NOYB"
Date: 8/19/2004 8:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"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.

If the boat won't start or run for sea trial, it
doesn't take a mechanical genius to assess its general operating condition.

on the other hand, if the boat is on shore, it is the buyer's responsibility to
pay for launching for a sea trial. If you are not interested enough in a boat
to launch it, you ain't interested.

btw, ***most*** squatheads who purposely intend to chisel on price use a
"survey" (paid for by them to expressly find vague, impossible to prove reasons
why the price *must* be lower.) Any broker worth his salt weeds those turds
out, or at least gets the turd to offer a much higher price than the owner
will accept, knowing the turd will chisel. Usually, turds end up paying above
what the owner will accept just because the broker is ****ed at the idgit.

but normally at that point, the seller
becomes more motivated so if problems are found, a formerly firm price
becomes amazingly negotiable (unless the seller is a complete idiot).

snicker, snicker, snicker. so the broker wants the chiseling buyer -- whom he
despises as an incompetent turd trying to steal something -- to believe. screw
with a broker and he/she will screw you back. and he/she has seen every
screwer type on the planet. It ain't an even match. And it shouldn't be even.
That is the service a broker offers to a seller. Insulation from the
sniveling fools trying to steal.

btw, ***most*** squatheads who purposely intend to chisel on price use a
"survey" (paid for by them to expressly find vague, impossible to prove
reasons
why the price *must* be lower.) Any broker worth his salt weeds those turds
out, or at least gets the turd to offer a much higher price than the owner
will accept, knowing the turd will chisel. Usually, turds end up paying
above
what the owner will accept just because the broker is ****ed at the idgit.

I can't believe my eyes.

"Any broker worth his salt will weed out the 'turds' insisting on a survey?"

Such a broker would be sweeping out the grade school for mini-wage within a
couple of months

If the seller is not willing to pay to have the boat put in the water for a
test run (and allow the survey to occur while in the water the same day),
then he is not interested in selling the boat. I would never pay at a
marina to have a boat put in the water so I can test drive it when the boat
is stored there.

As others have stated, buyer pays for the survey.
Seller pays to get it in the water for a test and the fuel (you should not
be burning much fuel on a test run of maybe a couple miles).

Now if your planning on doing a test drive on say Saturday and the survey
will not occur until another day - you would need to possibly pay for the
second put-in for the surveyor. You should coordinate so all occurs the
same day.

I have sold several boats and I have always towed it to the lake and paid to
launch for the test ride.

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

"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

gene, you are dumber than squat. stay out of this discussion. adults are
talking.

From: "Gene Kearns"
Date: 8/19/2004 9:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 20 Aug 2004 01:19:09 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

gene, knock it off for the criminy sakes. dood, you have no touch with the
world. Have you EVER bought a boat, used?

I suspect, that if money changes hands, cost for hauling should be
borne by the seller


You sort of missed the last part of that sentence, didn't you? You
know, that part about, "...and reimbursed by the buyer. "

Attention span not your long suit?


--



Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.

http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/cavern/ Homepage
http://www.southharbourvillageinn.com/directions.asp Where Southport,NC
is located.
http://www.southharbourvillageinn.linksysnet.com Real Time
Pictures at My Marina
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Rec.boats
at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide

goud, you are a frickin' idgit. reread what was written and come back next
week telling us about the baby aligators found in Arizona.

From: (Gould 0738)
Date: 8/19/2004 9:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

btw, ***most*** squatheads who purposely intend to chisel on price use a
"survey" (paid for by them to expressly find vague, impossible to prove
reasons
why the price *must* be lower.) Any broker worth his salt weeds those turds
out, or at least gets the turd to offer a much higher price than the owner
will accept, knowing the turd will chisel. Usually, turds end up paying
above
what the owner will accept just because the broker is ****ed at the idgit.

I can't believe my eyes.

"Any broker worth his salt will weed out the 'turds' insisting on a survey?"

Such a broker would be sweeping out the grade school for mini-wage within a
couple of months

tony, you are lost to this world. give up you dream of one day owning a
plywood rowboat.


From: "Tony Thomas"
Date: 8/19/2004 9:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: HAcVc.2779$9d6.1649@attbi_s54

If the seller is not willing to pay to have the boat put in the water for a
test run (and allow the survey to occur while in the water the same day),
then he is not interested in selling the boat. I would never pay at a
marina to have a boat put in the water so I can test drive it when the boat
is stored there.

As others have stated, buyer pays for the survey.
Seller pays to get it in the water for a test and the fuel (you should not
be burning much fuel on a test run of maybe a couple miles).

Now if your planning on doing a test drive on say Saturday and the survey
will not occur until another day - you would need to possibly pay for the
second put-in for the surveyor. You should coordinate so all occurs the
same day.

I have sold several boats and I have always towed it to the lake and paid to
launch for the test ride.

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

"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 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.

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

"Tony Thomas" wrote in message news:HAcVc.2779$9d6.1649@attbi_s54...
I have sold several boats and I have always towed it to the lake and paid to
launch for the test ride.

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


Tony,

When I hear discussions regarding the "cost of launching", I assume we
are (most of us) talking about the costs of a travelift or similar
large and expensive piece of marina-owned equipment needed to lower a
vessel to the water for a trial. Depending on the vessel and the
location, this can cost several hundred dollars.

I hope you didn't ask perspective buyers to pay you to tow your
Bayliner to the water with your Saturn...
(See:http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com) ; )

Regards,

Coff

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.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 20 Aug 2004 02:37:13 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

gene, you are dumber than squat. stay out of this discussion. adults
are
talking.


Another cerebral response commensurate with Jax's intellect....
--



Way to go guys. You managed to take this thread south, and fast.

Seems like the question was answered in the first post. It now looks like a
thread of flaming and continued rehashing and arguing about something
answered long ago.

I also see the original poster has stayed away from the thread and frankly I
don't blame her.

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

Now why am I lost in this world. I have owned everything from a rowboat to
a 24' cabin cruiser. I tested a couple of 25' and 26' boats before I found
the 24' one.
And the original question had nothing to do w/ putting it in the water to
have inspected. It only asked who would pay to have it put in the water for
a test ride.

I would assume we are talking about a boat that is not on a trailer and is
probably in the 28' or larger range.

Now, I would not put the boat in the water for a joy ride. However, I would
expect the seller to pay to get it in the water if we have settled on a
price and I am going to get a surveyer there when I test drive.

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

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
tony, you are lost to this world. give up you dream of one day owning a
plywood rowboat.


From: "Tony Thomas"
Date: 8/19/2004 9:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: HAcVc.2779$9d6.1649@attbi_s54

If the seller is not willing to pay to have the boat put in the water for
a
test run (and allow the survey to occur while in the water the same day),
then he is not interested in selling the boat. I would never pay at a
marina to have a boat put in the water so I can test drive it when the
boat
is stored there.

As others have stated, buyer pays for the survey.
Seller pays to get it in the water for a test and the fuel (you should
not
be burning much fuel on a test run of maybe a couple miles).

Now if your planning on doing a test drive on say Saturday and the survey
will not occur until another day - you would need to possibly pay for the
second put-in for the surveyor. You should coordinate so all occurs the
same day.

I have sold several boats and I have always towed it to the lake and paid
to
launch for the test ride.

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

"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

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.

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?



This thread has sparked some heated discussion (surprise ;) and given
you many opinions.

Here is what I do with my common sense and some (not much) boat
buy/sell experience.

The seller should as honestly as possible show and describe everyhting
thats wrong with the boat while on land, i.e. the boat leaks a gallaon
the hour, it runs fine but the throttle linkage is sticks ... it had
such and such hull damage ..

The motor runs fine/ok/not at all or whatever it does... it burns oil
or gearcase leaks.

Buyer then looks at everyhthing and based on the information from the
seller and his OWN impression makes a decission if this deal for the $
works for him.

To verify the sellers info they go for a sea trail which the seller
pays. The seller will NOT go for a sea trail if someone is not sure
about buying the boat if the boat performs as expected (important).

Such sea trail shouldt cost that much for "a boat" if its small ...
and the clever seller will have this cost worked in the sale price
beforehand ;)

Seller assumes he will take 5 customers for trails and each cost him
$30 for gas&launch so he ups his sale price by $150....

The buyer then buys the boat and is happy he didnt have to pay for the
trail ;)
Seller is happy because he also didnt pay for the trail ;)

If the buyer wants the boat checked by a mechanic or surveyor that
should be fully his own responsiblilty to pay for. Seller has to make
the boat available and accesible for this.

Should the seller have lied which is discovered then its a different
story and the fight is on ...

At the same note: Dont buy boats from people who are openly dishonest
(its up to you to determine that).

This is just my opinion as right or wrong it may be.

Always remember common sense, fairness and honesty and the willigness
to compromise is half the deal. I noticed that people you treat fair
will lateron be willing to help which is worth more than a few $.

A good deal is one that both parties would do again under the same
circumstances knowing what they know after the deal.

I dont know what value boat we are talking about but if its a $30000
boat then IMO its really irrelevant to argue wo pays $50 for a sea
trail.

Matt

You are correct. That is what several people including myself have been
saying.

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

"Matt Lang" wrote in message
om...
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?



This thread has sparked some heated discussion (surprise ;) and given
you many opinions.

Here is what I do with my common sense and some (not much) boat
buy/sell experience.

The seller should as honestly as possible show and describe everyhting
thats wrong with the boat while on land, i.e. the boat leaks a gallaon
the hour, it runs fine but the throttle linkage is sticks ... it had
such and such hull damage ..

The motor runs fine/ok/not at all or whatever it does... it burns oil
or gearcase leaks.

Buyer then looks at everyhthing and based on the information from the
seller and his OWN impression makes a decission if this deal for the $
works for him.

To verify the sellers info they go for a sea trail which the seller
pays. The seller will NOT go for a sea trail if someone is not sure
about buying the boat if the boat performs as expected (important).

Such sea trail shouldt cost that much for "a boat" if its small ...
and the clever seller will have this cost worked in the sale price
beforehand ;)

Seller assumes he will take 5 customers for trails and each cost him
$30 for gas&launch so he ups his sale price by $150....

The buyer then buys the boat and is happy he didnt have to pay for the
trail ;)
Seller is happy because he also didnt pay for the trail ;)

If the buyer wants the boat checked by a mechanic or surveyor that
should be fully his own responsiblilty to pay for. Seller has to make
the boat available and accesible for this.

Should the seller have lied which is discovered then its a different
story and the fight is on ...

At the same note: Dont buy boats from people who are openly dishonest
(its up to you to determine that).

This is just my opinion as right or wrong it may be.

Always remember common sense, fairness and honesty and the willigness
to compromise is half the deal. I noticed that people you treat fair
will lateron be willing to help which is worth more than a few $.

A good deal is one that both parties would do again under the same
circumstances knowing what they know after the deal.

I dont know what value boat we are talking about but if its a $30000
boat then IMO its really irrelevant to argue wo pays $50 for a sea
trail.

Matt