Sellers Beware - Criminal Trespass

[SV Siren]

I would certainly say that your broker has put you in a bit of a pickle. I would be talking to both the broker and buyer to find out how this happened, and to also clarify the buyers intentions. I would also have the broker get the engine keys, just in case, boats do not have legs but they can certainly grow a pair and disappear.

I would also be inquiring if they have any insurance on the boat, seeing that they are moving aboard, who knows what could happen while they are aboard. Other than that, one assumes that they are expecting no problems from a buyers perspective, and plan on the sale going through based on their actions....

[captaingregger]

I've closed on many houses and quite a few boats. I have also walked away from many deals when the bank or some other entity changed the terms of the deal at the last minute, trying to charge me a point or more at closing, additional fees, etc.

It would have been highly inappropriate for me to consider the property mine without the loan being funded.

No way you should let anyone move on to the boat until they've paid for it and it's now their boat.

This is pretty basic/ common sense stuff, folks.

I don't think he is over-reacting at all.

[Elie]

Maybe a simple call to the brocker would have settled this little snafu. I presume that the buyer has paid something and is just in a hurry for some good reason. I'm always amazed to see how fast in USA every one seems ready to jump at each other throat for anything that looks very trivial onless you give a chance to lawers to muddy simple things. In this case your brocker is simply and clearly unpolite or negligent, and deserves a call. But suing the new potential owner, spending money on this is in my opinion big overkill that may sour your relation with the buyer.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Elie

Maybe a simple call to the brocker would have settled this little snafu. I presume that the buyer has paid something and is just in a hurry for some good reason. I'm always amazed to see how fast in USA every one seems ready to jump at each other throat for anything that looks very trivial onless you give a chance to lawers to muddy simple things. In this case your brocker is simply and clearly unpolite or negligent, and deserves a call. But suing the new potential owner, spending money on this is in my opinion big overkill that may sour your relation with the buyer.

+1

But, as denverd0n has pointed out, the USA is a different country with different standards of trust and different ways of keeping people in line. And you’re quite right denverd0n about the Canadian standard of the loser of civil lawsuits typically covering the costs of the winner (it doesn’t always happen, but it is normal).

When travelling in the USA I’m always amazed at the number of ads one sees everywhere from law firms: “HAVE YOU STUBBED YOUR TOE?!? COME TO US. WE’LL BLAME SOMEONE, AND WE DON’T GET PAID IF YOU DON’T…”

Sadly, Canada is becoming more like this as well. We always seem to pick up our American friends’ bad habits, some 10 to 20 years later.

[ValiantV]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sadly, Canada is becoming more like this as well. We always seem to pick up our American friends’ bad habits, some 10 to 20 years later.

Since we're looking for people/countries to blame, might surprise some to find that the US barely makes the top 5 "most litigious countries".

https://www.clements.com/resources/a...s-in-the-World

Considered in a vacuum, the seemingly large number of ambulance chaser advertisements really doesn't tell us anything. Likely more about advertising rules than how sue-happy a country is.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by ValiantV

Since we're looking for people/countries to blame, might surprise some to find that the US barely makes the top 5 "most litigious countries".

https://www.clements.com/resources/a...s-in-the-World

Considered in a vacuum, the seemingly large number of ambulance chaser advertisements really doesn't tell us anything. Likely more about advertising rules than how sue-happy a country is.

Interesting stats; thanks. Looked at another way, the USA is actually pretty good when it comes to law suites. It comes in #1 for lawyers/capita, but only #5 for litigations/1000 people.

A quick search turns up this report: International Comparisons of Litigation Costs

In the headline chart looking at litigation costs as a percentage of GDP, the USA comes out on top at 1.66%, but Canada is #2 at 1.19% and then the UK at 1.05%. After that it drops off rather rapidly, with the Eurozone averaging a mere 0.63%.

[Kita]

Originally Posted by YADO

This response addresses Kita's issue above, which relates to a buyer's access to the boat in addition to settlement issues. I think Kita's issue should be in a different thread, she has a lot going on and looks like she needs good advice. Seems they took her cash and left her hanging....so far.

It was my bank in FL that was the problem, the bank said I needed to be there to do a wire transfer & I could have done a cashier's check or something like that it just would have taken more time before we would have been able to close. And Kita is a he haha

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

So lawyers work on a contingency basis, and file lawsuits with the only cost:benefit analysis being their time (little or no real, out-of-pocket expenses) versus the potential payoff. This situation, of course, very strongly encourages the filing of lawsuits. There is very little risk if you do not win.

The depth of your misunderstanding of the legal and contingency system in the US is phenomenal. The only thing you have stated correctly is the losing side not being responsible for the attorney fees of the prevailing side -in most instances. The rest is a flat-assed misstatement of reality.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

The rest is a flat-assed misstatement of reality.

What a completely useless and uninformative post. I said my understanding was imperfect. Some explanation of what I got wrong would be useful. I would be happy to be educated further on the subject. If all you can offer if pointless sniping, though, I will treat it appropriately, by ignoring it.

[hellosailor]

Wow. The alleged broker is really a broker? Or the employee or apprentice of one?

Allowing a buyer to move things in, or do anything besides the normal showing and inspection and sea trials, is most unprofessional conduct. There's no guarantee the sale will go through. And if those possessions include a couple of propane bottles, one of which leaks and blows up the boat...yes, these things can and do happen. WTF was the broker thinking?!

Contacting the broker and scathing their conduct while trying not to blow the sale is definitely in order. They need to be made aware that they are now 100% liable and if for any reason there is a problem with the sale, they're going to have to eat whatever the consequences are.

The broker knows damn well this is unacceptable conduct.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Wow. The alleged broker is really a broker? Or the employee or apprentice of one?

Contacting the broker and scathing their conduct while trying not to blow the sale is definitely in order. They need to be made aware that they are now 100% liable and if for any reason there is a problem with the sale, they're going to have to eat whatever the consequences are.

I would send the broker a letter informing him of his responsibility. I would seriously consider having a lawyer write it up for me.

[tomfl]

Maybe I missed it but I am wondering what the seller's detailer was doing on the boat after the sale seemed to be agreed on. Also wondering just how long the buyer was going to be on the boat before the sale was completed.

A couple of posts indicated buyers stayed on a boat a month or longer before the sale was completed. Not so sure just how much I would like that, but also suspect if it was a day or two I might go along with that, if I thought the buyer was responsible.

This is not the first post I have seen at CF where my first reaction was 'I have a lot more questions before I can figure out where I come down on this'. Maybe just a guess on my part but the OP does not seem to like the buyer and maybe is just taking things out on the buyer because he is not happy with the details of the sale. Perhaps the seller would be happier if the buyer had offered a higher sale price so the buyer could take possession of the boat a little early.

There have been a few posts about trust, or lack of trust, in boat sales. If a seller likes the buyer and is happy with the details of the sale I suspect there would be more trust. If the seller thinks the buyer low balled him and there were no other offers and the sale was sorta forced sale at a low price I can understand why the seller would not be willing to allow any advanced access to the boat.

It is still not clear to me if the buyer was living on the boat or just putting some boxes on the boat. If the case is the buyer was just putting boxes of personal possessions on the boat I am not sure it would be that big a deal with me.

Bottom line is there seems to be more to this story than has been posted so far.

[Bjooste]

Originally Posted by bsurvey

stop whining, you sold the boat and are getting some money


if anyone doesn't know how unethical brokers are they are naïve

Agree

[Kenomac]

We had full access to our boat for two months prior to closing for repairs and upgrades in the UK. Didn't take full possession until arrival in Guernsey. No problems.

I really don't see this issue being as big a deal as most on this thread.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

We had full access to our boat for two months prior to closing for repairs and upgrades in the UK. Didn't take full possession until arrival in Guernsey. No problems.

I really don't see this issue being as big a deal as most on this thread.

If your access was with proper permission, there is a significant difference. If it was not, the last two words of the title possibly apply to someone.