On Feb 13, 5:07�am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:26:21 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 12, 7:00?pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message

. ..

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:55:07 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Kinda ****ed me off, but there's really nothing
that can be done about it. ?In a boat sale, the buyer holds all the cards
... ?the seller just has to adjust.

That's not completely true. ?If the purchase agreement is properly
worded, and the terms breached, you can walk with the deposit.
A subtle suggestion or two of that possibility could do wonders to
expedite the closing.

But, isn't it interesting that the typical 10 percent deposit just happens
to cover the broker's commission?

Most agreements split the forfeited deposit between the broker and the
seller, up to the amount that would have been due the broker had the
sale gone through.

What? �You're kidding.

Why the heck should the broker get any money for a failed sale?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good question, and the answer is that the broker performed the service
he or she agreed to perform; bring an apparentl ready, willing, and
able buyer to contract. The broker has a financial investment in the
sale, and has a series of expenses to recover.

The only time that a buyer's deposit is normally forfeited is when the
sale fails due only to an arbitrary change of heart on the part on the
part of the buyer, ("We've decided to buy a motorhome instead,
sorry"), or when the buyer has made a misrepresentation ("I hate to
admit this, but I lied from the very beginning about having enough
cash to buy a boat."). Neither of those situations is the fault of the
broker.

If the sale falls apart without any forfeiture of deposit (due to
survey or financing contingencies in the original contract), then the
broker gets the same as the seller; nothing.

One of the situations that a broker must *always* guard against is a
back-door deal between the seller and buyer after the broker has done
his or her job;

Phone rings:

"Hello, Mr. Boat Buyer? This is Mr. Boat Seller."

"Oh, hello. What can I do for you?"

"How would you like to save another $5000 on the cost of the boat?"

"Well of course! But how would I do that? Are you planning to lower
the price?"

"No, I'm selling it too cheaply already. You're getting a whale of a
deal.
But what I think I can do to help to both of us to to reduce my
expense of selling the boat. Let's enter into a deal where we agree to
do business at a selling price of $5000 less than you have offered
through the yacht brokerage, and then you call the yacht broker and
tell him that you have been unable to qualify for "acceptable"
financing so the deal is off. I'll save $12,000 in selling expense by
cutting the broker out of the transaction, and I'll pass $5,000 of
that along to you."

"Make it six thousand, and you've got a deal."


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.

"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

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



And on Large and Expensive Boats, you know the brokers keep up with the
current status.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
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

And on Large and Expensive Boats, you know the brokers keep up with the
current status.



I should clarify my statement. The contract does not prohibit you from
making a deal with a previously introduced buyer. You just agree that the
broker is entitled to a commission if you do so, for up to a year following
termination of the contract.

Eisboch

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