Sailing With paying guests?

[a64pilot]

One really telling issue is in calling them paying guests.
That screams Charter. If one were to go about this it would need to be called from the beginning cost sharing, and you need to approach it that way, or else you will be expected to give the same service as a real Charter will.
I know your thinking great, this is how a I can get others to pay my bills, and that seems to be a strong theme now, with the YouTube thing and go fund me thing etc.
All it will take is for one of your guests to make a complaint to the authorities and your hosed, so first disgruntled “guest” you have, you better leave the country that night.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

Believe, don’t believe, litigation is all about proof. Who cares what someone “believes”?

Litigation is about getting the court (judge/jury) to believe your VERSION of proof.

If your "proof" is you claim it's just cost sharing and not a charter but paying their "share" is mandatory to get on the boat...the court will see through it and call it a charter.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

One really telling issue is in calling them paying guests.
That screams Charter. If one were to go about this it would need to be called from the beginning cost sharing, and you need to approach it that way, or else you will be expected to give the same service as a real Charter will.
I know your thinking great, this is how a I can get others to pay my bills, and that seems to be a strong theme now, with the YouTube thing and go fund me thing etc.
All it will take is for one of your guests to make a complaint to the authorities and your hosed, so first disgruntled “guest” you have, you better leave the country that night.

Any mention of cost, money, payment, etc...early in the process provides evidence that the trip was contingent upon payment. That's a charter by definition.

[john61ct]

Yes, voluntary payments are like tipping outside the States, completely optional, no consequences for declining to do so.

If the payments are in effect required, as with much tipping in the US, then that is part of a business exchange under the law

aka chartering

[Dockhead]

Exactly right. There are tons of ways to prove stuff. Two whole semesters on Evidence in law school.

Doing something wrong and counting on no one being able to prove it is a spectacularly bad plan which can end badly in about 50 different expensive, unpleasant ways. Just don't do it.

In most European countries you can share direct expenses without any issue. Most popular way for crew and boat to find each other is Crewseekers. If the op just wants company and an extra hand and someone to share fuel berthing and food costs with, in most countries this is no problem. If he hopes to earn something more than that, then that's chartering, and he will need to start a proper charter business with proper coding, licenses, and insurance.

Originally Posted by wingssail

Pretty bold talk.

But when it comes down to "he said" "she said"...

It's what the judge will believe that determines your fate.

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Litigation is about getting the court (judge/jury) to believe your VERSION of proof.

My point exactly. Burden of proof resides with both parties, statements by the passengers is not automatically gospel.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If your "proof" is you claim it's just cost sharing and not a charter but paying their "share" is mandatory to get on the boat...the court will see through it and call it a charter.

Yes you’re probably right except nowhere in my original post did I mention “cost sharing”. I talked of paying guests proving they weren’t paid crew, which would be my claim.

But folks, let’s not get our knickers in a tangle, my post was purely for conversational repartee and not a statement of intent. Where I come from claimants still have to provide some sort of proof to win a court case - in a “he said, she said” scenario, proof on both sides is generally quite sparse. That’s all I’m saying.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

My point exactly. Burden of proof resides with both parties, statements by the passengers is not automatically gospel.

Yes you’re probably right except nowhere in my original post did I mention “cost sharing”. I talked of paying guests proving they weren’t paid crew, which would be my claim.

But folks, let’s not get our knickers in a tangle, my post was purely for conversational repartee and not a statement of intent. Where I come from claimants still have to provide some sort of proof to win a court case - in a “he said, she said” scenario, proof on both sides is generally quite sparse. That’s all I’m saying.

Sure, it's just repartee, but let's be clear -- you do not understand how legal proof works. Testimony of even one person who gave you money or saw you getting it is evidence, and spoken testimony was no doubt the original type of evidence heard in the original cave man court. That may be all it takes to fine you or send you to jail in a criminal action, and the evidentiary hurdles are much lower in a civil case, in which you might lose your boat and house because your insurance refused to pay when you got sued by a charter guest.

In a civil case, the standard of proof in most countries is simply that the evidence makes the asserted fact seem more likely than not. So it may be just that simple -- the guest says he paid, you say he didn't, the judge looks at both of you and finds the guest more believable, and you lose your house and boat.

And remember that what is true is often believable just because it is true. Truth tends to come out, and judges who sort out truth from lies every day of the week are often extremely good at doing that. I would not count on a lie being treated equally by a wise old judge with the true testimony of your charter guest. He's a pro, and earns his salary by dealing with amateur liars all day, every day.

Besides that, there are lots of other ways to prove that you got paid, than just the testimony of the guest. I am writing this just in case some one reading this (thousands of people read these threads) is tempted to do something like this. Don't!

Note however that this:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If your "proof" is you claim it's just cost sharing and not a charter but paying their "share" is mandatory to get on the boat...the court will see through it and call it a charter.

is an American perspective. AFAIK not a single other country uses this "mandatory payment" definition. In most countries the definition of chartering does not include mandatory payments which are just compensation for shares of direct costs without any profit or compensation of indirect costs or other aspects of business.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

I talked of paying guests proving they weren’t paid crew, which would be my claim.

.

Either way thats a commercial activity .... Guilty !

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

My point exactly. Burden of proof resides with both parties, statements by the passengers is not automatically gospel.



Yes you’re probably right except nowhere in my original post did I mention “cost sharing”. I talked of paying guests proving they weren’t paid crew, which would be my claim.

But folks, let’s not get our knickers in a tangle, my post was purely for conversational repartee and not a statement of intent. Where I come from claimants still have to provide some sort of proof to win a court case - in a “he said, she said” scenario, proof on both sides is generally quite sparse. That’s all I’m saying.

"Paying Guests" "Paid Crew"...either way payment is involved which makes it a commercial operation.

If anything "paid crew" would be better. It's legitimately not a charter to pay crew to help you transport a private non-charter vessel (there may be insurance or other requirements to consider). Of course, that doesn't achieve your goal of offsetting the cost of cruising.

Not saying you plan to do it or not...but in a "he said, she said" the court still looks at the incentive for witnesses to lie. (example: with a speeding ticket, the court assumes the officers testimony holds a higher value as they are seen as not gaining anything as a result of the outcome...not necessarily true but that's how it's viewed) If they can show you asking about payment from the beginning, they likely will believe the passengers over you if you have a strong incentive to get out of a criminal or civil action.

Also a history of "random strangers" being taken on voyages supports the idea that it's really a commercial operation.

Keep in mind, if we are talking about a death or major injury, this thread would be easily found and tied to you. There is a lot of electronic evidence floating around you may forget about but may come back.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

. . . Also a history of "random strangers" being taken on voyages supports the idea that it's really a commercial operation.

Keep in mind, if we are talking about a death or major injury, this thread would be easily found and tied to you. There is a lot of electronic evidence floating around you may forget about but may come back.

There are many, many ways for the truth to come out in court, and it usually does.


A "history of random strangers" and testimony from even just one of them! A Facebook post from some satisfied customer! Your advertisements, however veiled the language. There is no end of the different kinds of evidence which can be used against you.



Again, doing something which might require you to get away with lying in court, is just a spectacularly bad idea!



Note also that lying under oath is a crime all of its own, for which people go to jail!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

A "history of random strangers" and testimony from even just one of them! A Facebook post from some satisfied customer! Your advertisements, however veiled the language. There is no end of the different kinds of evidence which can be used against you.

Good point about "satisfied customers". They are far less likely to be careful of terminology when blogging, face booking, etc. They may think they are doing you a favor posting about what a GREAT deal they got on the "charter". You may never even see many of these posts.

Also, other "guests" not involved in the case likely will be drug into proceedings. Good luck getting them to lie for you under oath when they have nothing to gain.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Good point about "satisfied customers". They are far less likely to be careful of terminology when blogging, face booking, etc. They may think they are doing you a favor posting about what a GREAT deal they got on the "charter". You may never even see many of these posts.

Also, other "guests" not involved in the case likely will be drug into proceedings. Good luck getting them to lie for you under oath when they have nothing to gain.

The truth almost always comes out, notwithstanding what you might see on TV. That's what courts are DESIGNED to do, what all the procedures are designed to do, and what judges do all day, every day.

[skipperpete]

Here in the Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand part of the world there is an element of illegal chartering by Cruising Yachtie's but the maritime authorities seem disinterested and in the last 20 years I don't recall any instances of intervention by the Jabatan laut or the police. Some cruisers advertise for paying crew for various legs of their journey through the Pacific and onward through Australian waters to Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand and it seems to work fairly well. This type of charter is very hard to detect and as a previous post mentioned, it works until there's a death, injury or a complaint..... then it gets very unpleasant. Chartering illegally out of a port or marina is very risky because the embedded legal charterers are always on the lookout for foreign vessels with ever changing "crew" in the popular anchorages and may report a suspicious operator to the authorities.
Calling the paying guests "crew" can be expensive by itself, in Thailand if crew leave a vessel and wish to fly out of the country there is a bond of about $1,000 per person required which is refundable upon the crews return.... but no bond for guests.

[Leighpilot]

Sounds like a wonderful way to lose friends.

[StoneCrab]

This thread is interesting in that I think we've all considered it or have done it from time to time. But I have to say, few discussions have been as entertaining.