Are Brokers Employees Of The Company?

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Quote: "Liens placed on boats for work done on boats are owed by the boat, which is a legal entity unto itself under admiralty law."

Well, no! Not quite. As always, it depends. I assume (merely on the preponderance of numbers) that CaptBill is an American. I have no clue, which also seems to be true for most Americans, how American law works or doesn't work.

In this 'ere colony, a REGISTERED vessel is a legal entity - with some exceptions. A LICENSED vessel is a mere chattel, but that's rather irrelevant to the OP's plight. The long and the short of it seems to be that failure to attend to SBP, let alone Generally Accepted Accounting Principles has hung the OP out to dry.

Seems to me that for a claim involving a grand or two, the sensible thing to do is to avoid the money expense, and income lost due to the time taken, of an action even in a small claims tribunal, and just learn from the episode. The lost revenue is merely a tuition expense. Even "tax deductible", if you do it right, i.e. according to GAAP.

For a grand a competent accountant will give you a few minutes of his time to explain how it should be done, and even a few sample forms that you can put on your computer and use for Work Orders.

TP

Yes Captain Bill is an american and so is fstbttms, thus US admiralty law applies. The following is an interesting read for those interested.

Maritime Liens for Necessaries 101 - Bullivant Houser Bailey PC - Attorneys at Law

It would seem that since fstbttms did the work a lien has automatically attached to the boat, but he hasn't registered it yet. The question now would seem to be is it worth the trouble and expense to pursue this course of action.

[Dave22q]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

#36 continued:

to sign a Work Order (by whatever name it may be called), and very often required to leave a credit card imprint as a condition of service being undertaken?

No honest man having received a fair estimate of the repair/service costs would refuse to sign or leave his imprint.

We see time and again that purveyors of yacht services are stiffed for their fees and materials costs. NO business, when a potential customer walks as a result of objecting to SBP, is better than BAD business when the customer walks AFTER the srvice has been provided. Collection action while possible totally destroys the profit marging on the job.

IMO it is up to the service provider to cover his butt BEFORE he does the work.


TP

Here is one honest man who will not leave credit card imprints with very small businesses such as a bottom cleaner. Just too much opportunity for fraud. Written work order fine, cash deposit probably not. Post dated check also fine. Here in Margaritaville there are just too many unreliable vendors.

[TrentePieds]

@ #46:

Much ado about nothing :-). My point in answer to yours, viz that a vessel is always a legal entity, is that it is not. A vessel, in this 'ere colony is a chattel unless it is REGISTERED, and by virtue of that registration has become a property of "the Crown" albeit with the "registered owner's" right to it's unrestricted use until and unless "the Crown" requisitions the vessel for its own use.

There would be no doubt, in this 'ere colony, that Fstbttms has a RIGHT to lien a yacht (a chattel) for work done on it, just as a mechanic has a right to lien for work done on, say, a chattel as trivial as a 1992 Toyota Corolla. But, apparently, Fstbttms failed to do so, so no lien exists. Without the vessel owner's name and "address for (legal) service" a registry could not perform the registration.

Furthermore Fstbttms, apparently, failed to obtain a signed work order from someone competent, in legal terms, to uphold his end of the bargain that the contract for work (WO) is. Should Fstbttms sue the broker, whom he obviously can identify, all the broker has to do to stall the suit is "put the plaintiff to the strictest proof" of the existence of the contract. Without that, the court would simply throw up it's hands on the basis of it being merely one man's word against another's and admonish Fstbttms to mind his administrative "p"s and "q"s in the future.

Let's hope that after reading this thread, Fstbttms is now on the right track.

But Dave22 makes a good point: Why should a vessel owner trust a "tradesman" who hasn't got his administrative functions in order? I wouldn't, any more than Dave would. That dynamic is one of the reasons that it is so difficult for a tradesman to establish himself as a viable, enduring business concern.

Years ago one commonly saw in public toilets the admonition: "You haven't finished till you've done the paper work!" Never was truer word spoken. Except that it's got the principle bassackwards. In business you must do the paperwork FIRST!

TP

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

But are you an admiralty law attorney? If not, perhaps you are the one who does not know what they are talking about. Liens placed on boats for work done on boats are owed by the boat, which is a legal entity unto itself under admiralty law. It typically does not matter who the owner is. There have been many threads on this forum regarding the archaic and highly specialized area of admiralty law especially when it comes to liens.

I doubt admiralty law even applies as long as she is reg. or doc. in the US it is real property. I doubt he cleaned the bottom 200 miles off shore.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Furthermore Fstbttms, apparently, failed to obtain a signed work order from someone competent, in legal terms, to uphold his end of the bargain that the contract for work (WO) is. Should Fstbttms sue the broker, whom he obviously can identify, all the broker has to do to stall the suit is "put the plaintiff to the strictest proof" of the existence of the contract. Without that, the court would simply throw up it's hands on the basis of it being merely one man's word against another's and admonish Fstbttms to mind his administrative "p"s and "q"s in the future.

I guess you like to think of yourself as some kind of legal expert. While I may not have a signature from the broker or boat owner (which again, is SOP in the boat maintenance industry), I do have an extensive electronic paper trail outlining exactly what work was to be performed by my company and when it was to be performed. I can assure you that I have taken non-payers to small claims court and won with less documentation than I have in this case.

Interesting that you put the onus for payment on the service provider. Apparently in your eyes, I don't deserve to be paid for the work since I "failed to obtain a signed workorder." I didn't "fail" to do anything. Verbal agreements are how this business works. But maybe you operate in the same fashion as my yacht salesman and his boat owner do.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

I guess you like to think of yourself as some kind of legal expert. While I may not have a signature from the broker or boat owner (which again, is SOP in the boat maintenance industry), I do have an extensive electronic paper trail outlining exactly what work was to be performed by my company and when it was to be performed. I can assure you that I have taken non-payers to small claims court and won with less documentation than I have in this case.

Interesting that you put the onus for payment on the service provider. Apparently in your eyes, I don't deserve to be paid for the work since I "failed to obtain a signed workorder." I didn't "fail" to do anything. Verbal agreements are how this business works. But maybe you operate in the same fashion as my yacht salesman and his boat owner do.

There seems to be a bunch of legal beagles out there. I don't think you said you would do it pro bono or gratis. Best of luck.

For my own part, I had the tops sides cleaned over a phone conversation. I sent 150 % since I though he didn't charge enough. He knew heath was the reason for the phone agreement and wouldn't expect to take advantage of him.

[TrentePieds]

Quote "Verbal agreements are how this business works."

Until you get yourself up a gum tree. Then PROOF becomes important. If you have proof of the work having been ordered, and your work having been accepted by the client, then why are you coming here for answers? Just go start an action. For one or two grand you don't need a lawyer, at least not in this 'ere colony. You can represent yourself in court. If you are in a position to serve Notice of Action, then just do it. If you've got proof of the work being ordered and of the client having accepted the work without protest, then Bob's yer uncle!

Bonne chance :-)

TP

[fstbttms]

In the States, lawyers are not used in small claims court. You pay the filing fee, pay to have the defendant served and then show up in court.

[fstbttms]

I just recieved an e-mail from the owner of the brokerage. He says he is looking into the matter and will have a response by the end of the week. Here's to hoping he does the right thing.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dave22q

Here is one honest man who will not leave credit card imprints with very small businesses such as a bottom cleaner. Just too much opportunity for fraud. Written work order fine, cash deposit probably not. Post dated check also fine. Here in Margaritaville there are just too many unreliable vendors.

Most of us in small business don't take imprints at all. I can't speak for Fstbttms. I use a credit card processor (Square) that I can swipe or take chips. I never see your credit card number. If we don't meet face to face I can send an invoice that gets processed the same way - I never see your credit card.

[nematon785]

I did a bit of drywall/ finish work for a friend of a very good client once. small job. she balked at paying. I told her no need to pay, just call someone else next time. small town here in Aspen. funny thing is she cant even get someone to cut her grass now. word gets around. too many good clients out there. best to do litle bits before taking on any real work, and burn the bad client at the very first sign of trouble. both the seller and the broker are bottom feeding trash. it really is that simple

[hellosailor]

IMPRINTS??
In the Great Blackout of 2003 I asked a couple of places (like food stores) "Don't you have a knucklebanger? Can't you take the card anyway?" and even back then, knucklebagers were hens' teeth. Sorry to have thrown out my own ancient one after 20 years of keeping it in a closet. They became worth their weight in gold. Now, they can be found again, but I've never meet a merchant who keeps one. Or the papers to feed it.

Square, Paypal, too many other ways to swipe cards AND get confirmation on them.

Hey, I walk up next to The Lady Ivanka and tell some guy "Yeah, I'm the wine steward, do me a favor and drop off six cases of the good stuff tonight?" and the fool does. Guess what? he can't put a lien on the vessel, neither the vessel, the owner, nor any authorized person ordered the work! The beef is against the guy who ordered the work--until and unless you can prove he had some authorization on behalf of someone who would be liable.

OK, FB had reason to think the guy was authorized. But that still shouldn't matter if he wasn't.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Most of us in small business don't take imprints at all. I can't speak for Fstbttms. I use a credit card processor (Square) that I can swipe or take chips. I never see your credit card number. If we don't meet face to face I can send an invoice that gets processed the same way - I never see your credit card.

I typically never lay eyes on my customers, so swiping a card is impractical at best. My e-mailed QiuickBooks invoices however have a link to the QuickPay portal, where my customers can pay with a credit card. I no longer take credit card info to be entered manually from my desktop.

[Dave_S]

Sorry if this has been mentioned but if you send them a letter to say you will accept less than the full amount and still end up in court. The judgement may be for the lesser amount. Don't put that in writing.

[keepondancin]

I didn't read through all the responses, it almost gets painful. I agree with Capt. Jerry, notice everyone with your filing in small claims court. I have used small claims court on several occasions, and have been successful each time. Just be prepared, and tell the truth. You can also add all court and filing costs to your complaint. Small claims is just for this type of issue, so use it. The other thing I discovered is that if word get's around that you follow up on deadbeats, you will have less problems, and the only customer you will lose is the one you don't want anyway. Also, I found that the court clerk was helpful in the paper work, so there was no problem. This is all in my home town in NY State, and I am assuming it is similar in most localities.