On Feb 13, 9:14�am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:26:21 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:

Splitting the buyer's forfeited deposit (up to the amount of the
commission) offers some assurance that the seller won't talk the buyer
into forfeiting the deposit and then buying the boat at a cheaper
price
once the supposedly "angry" seller pulls the listing following a
failed sale.

--------------------------------------------------------

It's also expressly forbidden to do so in the standard yacht sale contract
used by most brokers. �In fact, it prohibits the seller from making a deal
with a buyer introduced by the broker for a year following the termination
of the broker agreement.

Eisboch

Absolutely correct. And in practical terms, absolutely unenforceable.
The cost of taking a claim like that to court will nearly always
exceed the amount of money involved in the commission.

The good news is that most people are ethical and honest. The bad news
is that business is always done on the assumption that the specific
party involved at the moment may be among the tiny minority not so
ethical and honest.

Over the years, several people I caught red-handed trying to pull some
bogus nonsense looked me squarely in the eye and declared, "There's
nothing wrong with lying to a (car salesman, yacht broker, etc)."

Wonderful standard.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:08:40 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:14?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:26:21 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:

Splitting the buyer's forfeited deposit (up to the amount of the
commission) offers some assurance that the seller won't talk the buyer
into forfeiting the deposit and then buying the boat at a cheaper
price
once the supposedly "angry" seller pulls the listing following a
failed sale.

--------------------------------------------------------

It's also expressly forbidden to do so in the standard yacht sale contract
used by most brokers. ?In fact, it prohibits the seller from making a deal
with a buyer introduced by the broker for a year following the termination
of the broker agreement.

Eisboch

Absolutely correct. And in practical terms, absolutely unenforceable.
The cost of taking a claim like that to court will nearly always
exceed the amount of money involved in the commission.

The good news is that most people are ethical and honest. The bad news
is that business is always done on the assumption that the specific
party involved at the moment may be among the tiny minority not so
ethical and honest.

Over the years, several people I caught red-handed trying to pull some
bogus nonsense looked me squarely in the eye and declared, "There's
nothing wrong with lying to a (car salesman, yacht broker, etc)."

Wonderful standard.

Chuck - there are those who think there's nothing wrong with lying
(period). Hell, some folks think it just adds to the 'character' of the
liar.
--
John H

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...

Over the years, several people I caught red-handed trying to pull some
bogus nonsense looked me squarely in the eye and declared, "There's
nothing wrong with lying to a (car salesman, yacht broker, etc)."

Wonderful standard.

----------------------------------------

Not trying to toot my horn, but rather just trying to make a point:

I ran a company for many years, involving hundreds of contracts worth
unknown millions of dollars.
When we were going through due diligence for the sale of the company, the
buyer's lawyers were amazed that I had never been involved in a lawsuit.
They said they had never come across a company that had done that level of
business involving many large companies, particularly in high ticket, high
technology contracts that didn't occasionally run into legal issues and
problems. They asked me how I managed to accomplish this feat.

My answer to them was simple. "Do what you say you will do".

Eisboch