Irrational Customers

[boatman61]

Nice one Wottie, too many are in such a rush to have a pop they don't read all the post/S and spout a load of crap..

[Jim Cate]

^^^^^

Agreed! Folks, the OP did mention all those things in his first post. If the contract specified a non-returnable deposit as stated, all the concern for legal action seems to go away. Seems to me that if the owner had not been such a dick head about the additional fuel, none of the losses would have occurred, everyone would be happy anad the boat would already be at its destination.

Jim

[nwdiver]

You should have known the fuel volume before you signed on…..and never signed if you felt it was insufficient.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by nwdiver

You should have known the fuel volume before you signed on…..and never signed if you felt it was insufficient.

Once again...the OP knew the as built fuel volume (85 gallons).

There is nothing unusual about carrying additional temporary reserves fuel for a delivery, what is unusual for the owner to object to the professional opinion of his contracted delivery skipper. If the owner knew so much, why did he engage a delivery skipper or at least, second guess his judgement about fuel requirements.

IMHO, the OP did the smart thing by walking, who knows what else the owner was going to complain about!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Wotname

While it is true the OP did not state his 'contact' was written, given the first post, it would be safe to presume there was a written contract and and to assume contained suitable terms to protect the OP. I have added the emphasis to the OP.

Given the lack of clarification by the OP, it is not "safe to presume" anything. Certainly not to presume contract details.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

^^^^^

Agreed! Folks, the OP did mention all those things in his first post. If the contract specified a non-returnable deposit as stated, all the concern for legal action seems to go away. Seems to me that if the owner had not been such a dick head about the additional fuel, none of the losses would have occurred, everyone would be happy anad the boat would already be at its destination.

Jim

Non-refundable deposit presumes the owner cancels.

If the skipper cancels, that typically would not apply unless he can prove some breach of contract by the owner.

Without the OP coming back and providing details, we have no clue if the owner was "such a dick head" or if the OP was in over his head and purposely made a stink to scuttle the deal while keeping a little cash for himself.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Once again...the OP knew the as built fuel volume (85 gallons).

There is nothing unusual about carrying additional temporary reserves fuel for a delivery, what is unusual for the owner to object to the professional opinion of his contracted delivery skipper. If the owner knew so much, why did he engage a delivery skipper or at least, second guess his judgement about fuel requirements.

IMHO, the OP did the smart thing by walking, who knows what else the owner was going to complain about!

So why didn't the OP put the requirement for extra fuel in the Written Contract? I'm betting, there is more to this than the owner wouldn't accept the OP taking a couple of 5 gal jugs of fuel. In fact, I would have presumed the OP would just show up with the 5 gal jugs. The claim of going back and forth for months makes me very suspicious.

Of course, the OP could come back and provide details about the boat and Written Contract, so we don't have to speculate...but I'm betting he wouldn't come off so well if he did.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Given the lack of clarification by the OP, it is not "safe to presume" anything. Certainly not to presume contract details.

And yet, your following posts make several presumptions although IMO, they should have been assumptions.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Wotname

And yet, your following posts make several presumptions although IMO, they should have been assumptions.

Never claimed the world was "safe", just balancing out the presumptions.

[kmacdonald]

Like I calculated before, the boat had enough fuel to charge the batteries for 141 days. It had plenty of fuel. My assumption is the boat owner knew more than the captain. The back and forth between the two for two months was laying the groundwork to walk on the contract and keep so money. Not enough to get sued over but a nice payday none the less.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Like I calculated before, the boat had enough fuel to charge the batteries for 141 days. It had plenty of fuel. My assumption is the boat owner knew more than the captain. The back and forth between the two for two months was laying the groundwork to walk on the contract and keep so money. Not enough to get sued over but a nice payday none the less.

Really??
I would go with the view that if the owner was so good why did he need a delivery skipper and not just crew.
Could it have been to perform those nasty little details like route planning, prep etc?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Really??
I would go with the view that if the owner was so good why did he need a delivery skipper and not just crew.
Could it have been to perform those nasty little details like route planning, prep etc?

The owner might not have the time away from work to cross an ocean or maybe he doesn't like the monotony. Trivial and mundane tasks like route planning could be done by a ten year old. I doubt it was his first boat considering the largish fuel tank and engine size. It wasn't a small boat.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The owner might not have the time away from work to cross an ocean or maybe he doesn't like the monotony. Trivial and mundane tasks like route planning could be done by a ten year old. I doubt it was his first boat considering the largish fuel tank and engine size. It wasn't a small boat.

Could the owner have had difficulty finding a 10 year old that was up to the task?
Regrettably I don't have the physic ability to discern just what the owner might have, or may have been thinking so I will just have to accept your summation.

[Ballsnall]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

^^^^^
If the contract specified a non-returnable deposit as stated, all the concern for legal action seems to go away.

Not necessarily, if the contract was incorrectly terminated the owner has a valid claim for damages.
Given he has advised the skipper of his intention to sue, it would be reasonable to assume he considers a breach of contract has occurred.

Seems to me that if the owner had not been such a dick head about the additional fuel, none of the losses would have occurred, everyone would be happy anad the boat would already be at its destination.

It usually takes two dickheads to have an argument.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I doubt it was his first boat considering the largish fuel tank and engine size. It wasn't a small boat.

85 US gallons is 321l according to Google and I would not call that largish for a 80hp engine. Its tiny.
On my 30 feet boat with a 27hp engine I take around 250l in main tank and cans and I have never though that was largish.