The 2.5 million dollar judgement thread has a link to the details of
the lawsuit.

Here is the link again.

http://tinyurl.com/nq6wh

I spent some time reading through the document.

The boat that was heavily damaged was shipped back to Sea Ray for
repairs. According to the marine surveyor, the repairs were beyond
shoddy. They made the boat cosmetically OK, but did not repair the
underlying structural damage that made the boat unsafe.

It appears that Sea Ray can't or won't properly repair their own boats
when they are damaged. That seems rather strange to me.

If they can't fix them when they get damaged, how well built are they
in the first place?

If I was in the market for a new or used boat I don't think that Sea
Ray would make the list.

wrote:
The 2.5 million dollar judgement thread has a link to the details of
the lawsuit.

Here is the link again.

http://tinyurl.com/nq6wh

I spent some time reading through the document.

The boat that was heavily damaged was shipped back to Sea Ray for
repairs. According to the marine surveyor, the repairs were beyond
shoddy. They made the boat cosmetically OK, but did not repair the
underlying structural damage that made the boat unsafe.

It appears that Sea Ray can't or won't properly repair their own boats
when they are damaged. That seems rather strange to me.

If they can't fix them when they get damaged, how well built are they
in the first place?

If I was in the market for a new or used boat I don't think that Sea
Ray would make the list.


In my opinion, your logic may be flawed.

Sea Ray is in the business of building new boats, not repairng vessels
that (according to sworn testimony) were driven onto a reef at between
20-30 mph. Whether or not Sea Ray repaired this boat adequately has
nothing to do with the company's ability to build a new boat. Would you
refuse to purchase a new Toyota, for instance, because you learned that
the Toyota factory has few provisions for repairing previously sold
cars that had been in a wreck?

From another perspective, how many boats can be driven onto a reef at a
speed of between 20-30 mph and still be recoverable and considered
"repairable"? One might consider that a point in Sea Ray's favor.

A careful reading of the court documents reveals that the buyer wasn't
as screwed over, misled, or waltzed along the garden path as his
complaint alleged.

Important points:

The seller returned the boat to Sea Ray after the accident, and only
accepted it back into inventory after Sea Ray (the builder) affirmed
that it once again was up to OEM specifications. One could make a case
that the manufacturer is the ultimate expert on factory specs.

When the seller discovered some items over which they were concerned,
they hired a local yard to double check the work done at the factory
and paid for some additional repairs that the local yard recommended.

When the buyer expressed an interest in the boat, they buyer was told
that the boat had been damaged as the result of grounding and/or
collision and had been repaired. (The buyer and his attorney
represented the buyer as an "experienced boater.")

The buyer was afforded the names of the people who had done the work in
the local yard and encouraged to contact them for additional
information. (The buyer admits that he contacted one of the parties but
voluntarily settled for a brief telephone discussion before making a
final decision to proceed with the purchase). The buyer was given full
access to the vessel and afforded an opportunity to inspect any or all
repairs prior to finalizing the purchase.

Th buyer signed a statement acknowledging that the previous damages to
the boat were disclosed prior to purchase.

I'm having a tough time seeing just where the seller did anything wrong
in this transaction. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the
seller knew of any other defects in the boat- and in fact the seller
had paid to have previous defects corrected.
The seller informed the buyer that the boat had been damaged, provided
the buyer access to inspect the work, and even provided the name of the
local party who had worked on the boat so the buyer could make
additional inquiries.

About the only thing I would have done differently, if I had been the
seller, would have been to specifically encourage the buyer to engage
an independent surveyor prior to purchase.

If the buyer wanted to make his acceptance of the vessel contingent
upon survey, he should have hired a surveyor immediately prior to,
rather than immediately after, finalizing the transaction with the
dealer. One could almost conclude that when the very natural "buyer's
remorse" set in (and a few of the buyer's boating friends began
expressing astonishment that he would buy such a boat without a survey)
the chain of events that led to a big payday for the buyer began to
forge.

I think the seller has a responsibility to disclose anything unusual
about the history or condition about something being sold, and I think
that the court records establish that in this case the seller did just
that. It isn't the seller's obligation to save the buyer from himself.
If a fully informed buyer chooses to buy a boat that has been driven up
onto a reef and repaired, that's the buyer's perogative.

wrote:
The 2.5 million dollar judgement thread has a link to the details of
the lawsuit.

Here is the link again.

http://tinyurl.com/nq6wh

I spent some time reading through the document.


I did too, but not too much time. Legalese gives me a headache.

The buyer made a number of mistakes, including not getting a
survey, and not requesting fuller disclosure of repairs. For
example, the court papers list how many man-hours were
devoted to structural repair but no details of what the
actual work consisted of.



The boat that was heavily damaged was shipped back to Sea Ray for
repairs. According to the marine surveyor, the repairs were beyond
shoddy. They made the boat cosmetically OK, but did not repair the
underlying structural damage that made the boat unsafe.

It appears that Sea Ray can't or won't properly repair their own boats
when they are damaged. That seems rather strange to me.

If they can't fix them when they get damaged, how well built are they
in the first place?


IMHO not very well, but then I don't like Sea Rays in the
first place.

Another issue to consider is the nature of fiberglass boat
structure. It is quite possible for serious damage to not be
visible until the hull is stressed & deflects far more than
it should.


If I was in the market for a new or used boat I don't think that Sea
Ray would make the list.


Me neither, but probably not for the same reason. In fact, I
*am* in the market for a boat but one with sails




wrote:
In my opinion, your logic may be flawed.

Sea Ray is in the business of building new boats, not repairng vessels
that (according to sworn testimony) were driven onto a reef at between
20-30 mph. Whether or not Sea Ray repaired this boat adequately has
nothing to do with the company's ability to build a new boat. Would you
refuse to purchase a new Toyota, for instance, because you learned that
the Toyota factory has few provisions for repairing previously sold
cars that had been in a wreck?


Yeah, but they should at least know who can do a good job
fixing it, and send it there.

From another perspective, how many boats can be driven onto a reef at a
speed of between 20-30 mph and still be recoverable and considered
"repairable"? One might consider that a point in Sea Ray's favor.


True. I'd also suggest that a technician who drives a boat
onto a reef at 20-30 mph is too friggin' stupid to be much
of a technician.


A careful reading of the court documents reveals that the buyer wasn't
as screwed over, misled, or waltzed along the garden path as his
complaint alleged.

Important points:

The seller returned the boat to Sea Ray after the accident, and only
accepted it back into inventory after Sea Ray (the builder) affirmed
that it once again was up to OEM specifications. One could make a case
that the manufacturer is the ultimate expert on factory specs.

When the seller discovered some items over which they were concerned,
they hired a local yard to double check the work done at the factory
and paid for some additional repairs that the local yard recommended.

When the buyer expressed an interest in the boat, they buyer was told
that the boat had been damaged as the result of grounding and/or
collision and had been repaired. (The buyer and his attorney
represented the buyer as an "experienced boater.")


Not as "experienced" as he is now, by golly!

The buyer was afforded the names of the people who had done the work in
the local yard and encouraged to contact them for additional
information. (The buyer admits that he contacted one of the parties but
voluntarily settled for a brief telephone discussion before making a
final decision to proceed with the purchase). The buyer was given full
access to the vessel and afforded an opportunity to inspect any or all
repairs prior to finalizing the purchase.


That's what they say now. There is no mention of
recommending a surveyor, so I assume they didn't. Not that
one should use a broker-recommended surveyor, but at least
they could have mentioned it.



Th buyer signed a statement acknowledging that the previous damages to
the boat were disclosed prior to purchase.

I'm having a tough time seeing just where the seller did anything wrong
in this transaction.

Well, they used the old "another person is flying in from
Florida to buy this boat" gambit. Or maybe it was true.


... There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the
seller knew of any other defects in the boat- and in fact the seller
had paid to have previous defects corrected.

It sounds like they might have misled the buyer as to the
nature of the accident causing the damage.


The seller informed the buyer that the boat had been damaged, provided
the buyer access to inspect the work, and even provided the name of the
local party who had worked on the boat so the buyer could make
additional inquiries.


Yep, and he apparently didn't take it seriously.


About the only thing I would have done differently, if I had been the
seller, would have been to specifically encourage the buyer to engage
an independent surveyor prior to purchase.


Careful we don't want Skipper chiming in here with his
accusations


If the buyer wanted to make his acceptance of the vessel contingent
upon survey, he should have hired a surveyor immediately prior to,
rather than immediately after, finalizing the transaction with the
dealer.

And the buyer was a fool not to, IMHO.
Even if the buyer is so rich that a $3/4 mill boat is a
trivial playtoy, the surveyors fee would have been even more
trivial and well justified in the additional info given.

I think the buyer got stars in his eyes about buying a
million+ dollar boat at a big discount, convinced himself it
was a great deal, and then didn't look into it.


... One could almost conclude that when the very natural "buyer's
remorse" set in (and a few of the buyer's boating friends began
expressing astonishment that he would buy such a boat without a survey)
the chain of events that led to a big payday for the buyer began to
forge.


And people probably began telling him, in response to his
bragging about what a great deal he got, that his boat is
the one that had it's picture in paper, high & dry on that
jetty.



I think the seller has a responsibility to disclose anything unusual
about the history or condition about something being sold, and I think
that the court records establish that in this case the seller did just
that.

Now, there I disagree, somewhat. From what I read, it looks
like the seller tried to minimize the seriousness of the
accident.


.... It isn't the seller's obligation to save the buyer from himself.
If a fully informed buyer chooses to buy a boat that has been driven up
onto a reef and repaired, that's the buyer's perogative.


I agree, and the award of punitive damages in this case is
ridiculous. So, Mr Dumb Rich Guy didn't get the deal of a
lifetime on his million dollar go-fast boat? Boo hoo hoo.

OTOH it also sounds like the dealer made some pretty bad
mistakes and tried to get out of it with as much profit as
they could. If, after more full disclosure, the boat sold
for "only" $380K then one might assume that this was at
least in the ballpark of it's market value in that
condition. So why did they sell it to Mr Dumb Rich Guy for
$760K ?? Other than 'because they could' I mean?

Fair Skies
Doug King

Amen.
I had a hard time getting through so many pages, but when I finally did, my
conclusion was that the seller was severely penalized and the buyer received
too much compensation.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
The 2.5 million dollar judgement thread has a link to the details of
the lawsuit.

Here is the link again.

http://tinyurl.com/nq6wh

I spent some time reading through the document.

The boat that was heavily damaged was shipped back to Sea Ray for
repairs. According to the marine surveyor, the repairs were beyond
shoddy. They made the boat cosmetically OK, but did not repair the
underlying structural damage that made the boat unsafe.

It appears that Sea Ray can't or won't properly repair their own boats
when they are damaged. That seems rather strange to me.

If they can't fix them when they get damaged, how well built are they
in the first place?

If I was in the market for a new or used boat I don't think that Sea
Ray would make the list.


In my opinion, your logic may be flawed.

Sea Ray is in the business of building new boats, not repairng vessels
that (according to sworn testimony) were driven onto a reef at between
20-30 mph. Whether or not Sea Ray repaired this boat adequately has
nothing to do with the company's ability to build a new boat. Would you
refuse to purchase a new Toyota, for instance, because you learned that
the Toyota factory has few provisions for repairing previously sold
cars that had been in a wreck?

From another perspective, how many boats can be driven onto a reef at a
speed of between 20-30 mph and still be recoverable and considered
"repairable"? One might consider that a point in Sea Ray's favor.

A careful reading of the court documents reveals that the buyer wasn't
as screwed over, misled, or waltzed along the garden path as his
complaint alleged.

Important points:

The seller returned the boat to Sea Ray after the accident, and only
accepted it back into inventory after Sea Ray (the builder) affirmed
that it once again was up to OEM specifications. One could make a case
that the manufacturer is the ultimate expert on factory specs.

When the seller discovered some items over which they were concerned,
they hired a local yard to double check the work done at the factory
and paid for some additional repairs that the local yard recommended.

When the buyer expressed an interest in the boat, they buyer was told
that the boat had been damaged as the result of grounding and/or
collision and had been repaired. (The buyer and his attorney
represented the buyer as an "experienced boater.")

The buyer was afforded the names of the people who had done the work in
the local yard and encouraged to contact them for additional
information. (The buyer admits that he contacted one of the parties but
voluntarily settled for a brief telephone discussion before making a
final decision to proceed with the purchase). The buyer was given full
access to the vessel and afforded an opportunity to inspect any or all
repairs prior to finalizing the purchase.

Th buyer signed a statement acknowledging that the previous damages to
the boat were disclosed prior to purchase.

I'm having a tough time seeing just where the seller did anything wrong
in this transaction. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the
seller knew of any other defects in the boat- and in fact the seller
had paid to have previous defects corrected.
The seller informed the buyer that the boat had been damaged, provided
the buyer access to inspect the work, and even provided the name of the
local party who had worked on the boat so the buyer could make
additional inquiries.

About the only thing I would have done differently, if I had been the
seller, would have been to specifically encourage the buyer to engage
an independent surveyor prior to purchase.

If the buyer wanted to make his acceptance of the vessel contingent
upon survey, he should have hired a surveyor immediately prior to,
rather than immediately after, finalizing the transaction with the
dealer. One could almost conclude that when the very natural "buyer's
remorse" set in (and a few of the buyer's boating friends began
expressing astonishment that he would buy such a boat without a survey)
the chain of events that led to a big payday for the buyer began to
forge.

I think the seller has a responsibility to disclose anything unusual
about the history or condition about something being sold, and I think
that the court records establish that in this case the seller did just
that. It isn't the seller's obligation to save the buyer from himself.
If a fully informed buyer chooses to buy a boat that has been driven up
onto a reef and repaired, that's the buyer's perogative.

Me neither, but probably not for the same reason. In fact, I
*am* in the market for a boat but one with sails


Patty O'Furniture wrote:
Make me an offer - I'm heading down your way this summer. :)

What kinda boat?

Right now I've got my eye on a Tripp 26, but that's a little
pricey.

http://www.tripp26.org/stories/2003/...gPictures.html

My two requirements are
1: kick-ass fun to sail
2: big & stable enough to take family out, also teaching
beginners

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Chuck writes

Sea Ray is in the business of building new boats, not repairng vessels
that (according to sworn testimony) were driven onto a reef at between
20-30 mph. Whether or not Sea Ray repaired this boat adequately has
nothing to do with the company's ability to build a new boat. Would you
refuse to purchase a new Toyota, for instance, because you learned that
the Toyota factory has few provisions for repairing previously sold
cars that had been in a wreck?

end

If the Sea Ray factory was not capable of properly repairing a boat
that was so heavily damaged, why didn't they refuse to do so? They
also could have subcontracted the work to a qualified facility. They
tried, but failed, to repair one of their own products correctly. To
me, this speaks volumes about their abilities and judgement.

Your analogy for Toyota Motor Company is weak. If I brought a wrecked
Toyota truck to a Toyota dealership I would be directed to a qualified
repair facility. The truck would not be sent back to the factory for
repairs. If it was, I would expect it to be repaired to an extremely
high standard. If it wasn't, it absolutely would affect my decision as
to whether or not to buy another one. TMC is in the business of
building new cars and providing parts and support for previously sold
product. If TMC went into the repair business I would expect TMC
standards for the repair. If they didn't deliver, my decisions would be
affected significantly.

Chuck writes

The seller returned the boat to Sea Ray after the accident, and only
accepted it back into inventory after Sea Ray (the builder) affirmed
that it once again was up to OEM specifications. One could make a case
that the manufacturer is the ultimate expert on factory specs.

When the seller discovered some items over which they were concerned,
they hired a local yard to double check the work done at the factory
and paid for some additional repairs that the local yard recommended.

end

Chuck, you make my point here, exactly. Sea Ray did a poor job of the
repairs, yet told the dealer that it was back to OEM specs. Even after
Sea Ray shipped the boat back to the seller, there were still problems
that needed further repair. That doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling
about Sea Ray. Quite the opposite. This would, and should, affect a
buyer's decisions as to Sea Ray quality.

I agree with your conclusion that the seller failed to perform due
diligence when he bought the boat. I also agree with the decision of
the court that the seller did not do an adequate job of disclosing the
provenence of the boat and incurred substantial liability by failing to
do so.
Busy rich people sometimes don't spend the time to be really careful
about their major purchases. It was clear that the buyer was in a big
hurry to do some boating before the season ended. In the rush, he
trusted the wrong people to provide him with good information. The
court agreed with the buyer.

Chuck, thanks again for your contributions to the group. I always look
forward to reading your contributions, even if I disagree with you once
in a great while.

wrote:


Chuck, thanks again for your contributions to the group. I always look
forward to reading your contributions, even if I disagree with you once
in a great while.

Heck, if we didn't see things from different perspectives discussions
would be pretty boring, would they not?

Poster A: Such and such is so.
Poster B: I agree
Poster C: I agree
Poster D: I agree
Poster E: I agree

(cue snoring).