Tacet

This contract you mention - is the buyer bound to proceed too? Or is it entirely within the gift of the buyer to decide whether they are satisfied with the survey, no matter how trivial a fault may be identified? It is possible to create an option e.g. for the prospective purchaser to buy the boat if it wishes to do so, but it takes some deliberate effort. Most simple sale contracts work both ways. If you want the seller to be bound to you - it is usually necessary to give a clear commitment in return.

Much more sensible - until the seller withdraws from the sale due to a better offer and you have incurred the lift out and survey costs.

Are any gadgets BSS approved?

You could connect the glow plugs directly to the battery (probably best to disconnect the permanent wiring) and see if it makes a difference.

Who is using the land - and for how long - seems to be relevant too.

It's not a point if physics that I raised. Not sure how I can make that any simpler......

I thought it was you that was criticising others for using hearsay? It seemed rather ironic that you would do the same in the same post. You are fond of telling us that you are ready to acknowledge your own errors - but that isn't always so, is it? For what it's worth, in my view, Wikipedia info is frequently to be preferred to some of the home-made views posted.

Copying and pasting from wiki amounts to hearsay. It might be accurate too, if course.

If the patches have formed whilst you were away from the boat, it is more likely to be a leak than condensation.

Your quote was, it seems, from guidance. Mine is from the Regulations. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/regulation/2

Please quote correctly from the RCR: 'distributor” means a person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes a product available on the market; Is it? Genuine question. I can see a PCA is required when a boat comes into scope (e.g. change of use) or has been the subject of a major craft conversion - but where do the Regulations provide it makes a non-compliant boat compliant? Alan's position is that any party involved in the sale is in the "supply chain" - which is the critical position to have RCR responsibilities. Whilst he (reasonably) says a lone broker is involved he is remarkably coy about whether other parties that are undoubtedly 'involved" (grammatically at least) are also in the supply chain.

Hmmm. By analogy, you should be able to employ people for little more than the cost of the bus fare to work - the rest being profit. Income is taxed, of course.

If Mr Bayweather buys and rents the house to Mr Trapicadle, the latters wife and children will have the same space. Often the reason Mr T wishes to own (not occupy) a house is his desire to enjoy longer term financial advantage from the housing shortage he now feels indignant about. Which is fair enough - he is broadly in line with Mr Bayweather albeit he is older and further ahead. Tony B is broadly right. If we, as a nation, wish to largely eliminate the private rented sector then capping rents and legislating for security of tenure will help achieve the aim. The rented stock will become owner occupied over time. On its own, this will leave home seekers even more at the mercy of the market forces. If that is undesirable (which it is), public provision will be necessary -and that will incur some public cost. What doesn't really work is expecting people to let houses on unattractive terms.

That's useful - but it's not well written so as to fill one with confidence. The heading refers to Retailers and Brokers but a. mentions only broking and c. e. & f are not things that are " have and/or will offer to clients". And who are the "clients"? Do they include prospective buyers? Anyway, d. is hardly going very far. At best it is imposing an obligation on its members - not stating BMs opinion of the law. In its Brokers Guide dating from as recently as May 2024 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.marine-finance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/British-Marine-brokers-guidance.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjgpITO8N6KAxXhXUEAHQP3N1cQFnoECC8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1-jEAl5gXh_iaprm62u2kO "If the vessel is not UK (or CE) Marked, in part or whole, you may market the vessel to prospective purchasers provided that the seller is not you, the original boatbuilder or a corporate body. You MUST disclose the non-compliant RCR (RCD) status of the vessel in your marketing materials and bring this to the attention of all prospective purchasers. Suggested guidance on the due diligence you should exercise is set out below." Has BM revoked this guidance to Brokers?

Apologies if you have provided this elsewhere - but can we see the legal opinion or even the BMF communication to its members?

Indeed and that's the crunch. If we want a private rented sector, it can't be overregulated or subject to severe rent control Working in property, a house subject to a Rent Act tenancy was worth, as a rule of thumb, one third of its vacant possession value. This was because the statutory rents were low and the tenant had long-term security of tenure. As a consequence no houses were available to let.

Paul C says (in summary) a consumer has the same rights whether buying from broker or a trader. You say you are both on the same page and add an example in support, of a marina that is both a trader and a broker. Paul Cs common sense approach was known by you to be wistful thinking - yet you broadly went along with it without making any comment that there are very different consumer rules between broker and trader sales so this logic provides no support to the idea that RCR must apply equally.

No. You were endorsing a general principle that differing consumer rights would not depend on whether the marina was a broker or a trader which, as you know, is not the case.

Gosh Alan, you do switch the basis of your arguments with regularity You are now promoting the idea there can be no possible difference to the consumer a between a broker sale and trade sale - where you have previous asserted that very different rules apply. Different scenarios of course, but you can't hold the same principle throughout. You changed your thoughts at least twice in this thread too. If you're acting as a devils advocate, you do so very well. But if you are sincere in each posting, it more looks as though you have made your mind up already and are scratching around for justification.

You're arguing about words of your own choosing that are irrelevant again. The broker is undeniably part of the sales process - but that's not the test. Neither is 'putting the vessel onto the market' The RCR imposed duties on a distributor - which is defined as being a person in the supply chain. So is the classic broker in the chain? It doesn't own the boat at any stage and is not a party to the contract. The word "chain" conveys a linear implication (to me, at least), and suggests it is one (link) party at a time - rather than all and sundry who play any part. If supply chain brings in a broker, it might equally bring in the advertising media, the mooring owner, the bank, the boat cleaner, the haulage company, the fender retailer and anyone else that plays an incidental role in preparing a boat for sale. The broker/distributor has also to be part of the supply chain. Apologies for not mentioning this before. I let this one go. Alan seems to think someone can sell something that it doesn't own.

If someone is selling a boat as owner - it is not a broker (at least in the subject transaction. Not quite - the broker doesn't own the boat and is not a party to the sale contract. I'll ask again, are the likes of Apollo Duck, eBay and even this site in the "supply chain" when they advertise a boat? If not, where does one draw the line?

We only need to concern ourselves with the one definition of a distributor - as per the RCR. Ii is unclear to me whether a broker is "making a product available" or whether it is merely informing others that the product is available. But the first question is whether a broker is part of a supply chain - or not. What is it that puts a broker in the supply chain. Is it the totality of its services that sets it apart from Apollo Duck? Or something in particular?

That is my feeling - but it is a genuine question and I would be pleased to hear the thoughts of others. Particularly if they are well-reasoned.

In order to be a distributor, it needs to be in the supply chain. If a broker is in the chain - is Apollo Duck too? And eBay?