Bought boat without Broker - Right or Wrong?

[louielouie]

We chartered a boat that was listed by an owner/broker. We were not working with a broker at the time and made an offer on the boat, he declined. We moved on and continued our search 6 months later with a buyer's broker, nice guy, very helpful. This broker worked with us for about 2 months when the original owner of the boat we had chartered contacted us to say he was willing to sell us the boat per original deal (with no broker involved). We explained to our current broker the situation and that if the deal fell through we would like to continue working with him. He was obviously upset, we never heard back from him. Question is, were we wrong to proceed without him?

[john61ct]

Technically maybe not, but since his commission is actually paid by cutting the seller's broker's in half, was not IMO a smart move.

[louielouie]

Just to clarify, the seller would not proceed with the sale if we brought in a broker. Obviously didn't want to split commission.

[introverted]

Originally Posted by louielouie

Just to clarify, the seller would not proceed with the sale if we brought in a broker. Obviously didn't want to split commission.

The seller's broker didn't want to split the commission? Or did the seller not have a broker and thus didn't want to compensate your broker? If former, then A) yah, no sense in ditching your broker since he is getting paid commission split with seller's broker B) the seller needs a new broker.. he just lost a sale. Otherwise, if there was no seller's broker then your broker would have nothing to split... No sense in him sticking around. Him not calling you back was his way of saying "go waste someone else's time."

[louielouie]

I think maybe I wasn't clear. The seller was a broker selling his own boat. He didn't want us bringing in a broker since our original offer to him was direct months before. We had chartered the boat and then made him an offer at the end of the charter, no broker involved.

[Scott Berg]

If the seller (who is a broker) introduced you to the boat then the second broker shouldn't be owed a commission in most cases. You were already aware of the boat, it wasn't because of the 2nd broker. This stuff is what causes bar fights in Ft Liquerdale!

[introverted]

Originally Posted by louielouie

I think maybe I wasn't clear. The seller was a broker selling his own boat. He didn't want us bringing in a broker since our original offer to him was direct months before. We had chartered the boat and then made him an offer at the end of the charter, no broker involved.

And he turned down your offer? and months later he is regretting that decision and then called you asking to submit the same offer without the broker you had been working with for months? You moved on. You got a broker to assist you after that failed transaction. I get the whole "you already knew about the boat." but your broker's job isn't just to help you find a boat, its to assist before, during and after the transaction. I would not have ditched my broker in that instance. The seller should have taken your original offer months before, but he decided he wanted the same terms after saying no? Personally I would have countered with a lower offer AND said, "Hey, boats depreciate... and I'm bringing my buyer's broker with me."

[louielouie]

Actually was more complicated than that. We were supposed to put this boat into his charter fleet, was all quite involved with set charter income etc. A package deal of sorts. In hindsite if was a regular transaction of buy and leave we would have brought in our broker. Thanks for everyone's take on this appreciate it!

[john61ct]

Yes that wasn't clear.

It was the seller's mistake to not be willing to accept your buyer's broker

and IMO still yours maybe not to push a bit harder for that.

Depending on how valuable he would have been to that transaction, maybe would have been worth finding a way to get him comp'd, he may have accepted a bit lower.

But coulda shoulda woulda, water under the bridge

[somanyboats]

You could have still used the broker you were working with, just paid him privately. He would have made sure the paperwork was in order and perhaps gotten you better terms.
We have done this and it was a win for us.
As the buyer, you are paying all the commisions.
The seller adjusts the sale price to accommodate costs.
You could adjust the price you were will the pay.

[mayberrybfd]

In any sales profession you gotta know your feelings are gonna get hurt. Its part of the sales game. People are difficult. Nothing personal.

[jmschmidt]

You are never wrong to represent your own interests first. Just make sure you are doing what's best for you in the long run. None of us are borne with an obligation to make sure a broker gets a commission. As long as that is made clear from the beginning I see no problem and a good broker will respect you for your honesty.

[hellosailor]

Let's suppose the OP was simply walking out for a daysail on someone's boat, and saw another boat on that dock that said "FOR SALE" and the owner of that boat was on board, talked to the OP, and said "You want to buy it?"

That's basically the same thing here. The OP has engaged a buyer's broker. The buyer's broker did not come up with a suitable boat, some outside event did.

That's just the way it goes, the buyer's broker just didn't come up with a suitable boat before the OP got an offer for one.

If the buyer's broker worked his ass off and the OP feels that he can bring something to the purchase process, by all means, use his services the same way you would have used them, and offer to pay him the same way you would have paid him.

The fact that the seller is also a broker has nothing much to do with this. You can't use his services--because he's the seller, that's too much conflict of interest, as such. If you just need to exchange money and receipts...then you don't need either "broker".

The OP would still probably need to do a title search and attend to other details, but that doesn't mean a broker is required, or needs to charge full rate for reduced services.

[Dr. Sea]

Originally Posted by louielouie

Question is, were we wrong to proceed without him?

You did the right thing. During the time you worked with the second broker he failed to produce a deal for you. I understand his disappointment after working with you and then getting nothing out of it, but he did nothing to find the boat and deal that you wound up with. You gave him the opportunity to make a sale, but he didn’t produce. You don’t owe any salesman anything more than an honest opportunity to make a sale. Sleep well, happy sailing!

[john61ct]

Really?

I figured the ethical exception was from it being a boat from before the contract started.

I thought when contracted with a buyer's broker,

assuming he's working well for me,

that I'm obligated to involve him in the transaction for any boat **either** of us come across during the contract period.

Way I work, I'm going to be out looking much harder than he is, with dozens of active clients going

to the point that "the looking" is not actually a large part of his value to me.