Tacet

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?

Distributors have obligations under the RCR - but they are not quite as sweeping as you claim. The definition of a distributor is: "distributor” means a person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes a product available on the market; But is a broker in the supply chain? Although it is practically involved in the sale admin at no point does it own the boat. Why do you say a broker is in the supply chain - it more feels as though it is alongside the chain.

That is to be the basis of my next query - what offence is committed, if any, by a broker arranging a sale of my hypothetical non-compliant boat. I think it is best saved for a new thread - to slightly reduce the opportunities for those fond of muddying the waters.

You're now seeking to define "commercial transaction" rather than the RCR use of "commercial activity". And omitting the "in the course of". So it's unlikely to take us forward. If every financial transaction is in the course of a "commercial activity", why can't I recover the VAT when buying a drink?

The RCR states: "making available on the market” means any supply for distribution, consumption or use on the [Market of Great Britain] in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge and related expressions must be construed accordingly; 1. If the draughtsman wished to include private sales, it could be achieved by omitting the words "in the course of a commercial activity" thus "means any supply for distribution, consumption or use on the [Market of Great Britain]..... whether in return for payment or free of charge and related expressions must be construed accordingly; But it doesn't omit this phrase. Thus your suggested interpretation offends the rule against superfluiity, which is a firm guide for interpreting legislation and contracts 2. If the definition captures private sales (because they are financial transactions), where does this leave free of charge transfers, which are clearly included, but not, even in your way of thinking, commercial transactions? It becomes incomprehensible. Your confusing a financial transaction with being in the course of a business activity. It would mean that every purchase or sale of anything would be a commercial activity

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drafting-bills-for-parliament/2024-03-19-drafting-guidance#part-1-clarity

No chance. In the course of commercial activity means as a part of a wider business. The alternative interpretation would include any supply - and the other words would be entirely superfluous No. It is the bit about supply chain that you omitted The RCR refers to "in the course of a commercial activity". If it meant nothing about business, it could say for consideration or otherwise.

The RCR provides that "making available on the market” means any supply for distribution, consumption or use on the [Market of Great Britain] in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge and related expressions must be construed accordingly; Therefore, in the statutory sense, only in the course of a commercial activity can a watercraft be made available on the market. So it doesn't mean a private seller.

Food indeed. But the RCR defines thus: " making available on the market” means any supply for distribution, consumption or use on the [Market of Great Britain] in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge and related expressions must be construed accordingly; So not, I think, a private seller. Incidentally, your definition of a distributor is not quite the same as the RCR which is: "distributor” means a person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes a product available on the market;

It's a fair point - although in this case you could probably find someone (brokers included) on the internet to say almost anything hence my preference for a direct reference to legislation. Alan de has correctly said that manufacturer can be brought to task for non compliance with the RCR. He has also (equally helpfully and correctly) cut and pasted a long section from an unattributed source that says one can be prosecuted for breaking the law - which may not come as a surprise to many. Tony B says no-one can know the law at present and the law may change anyway and you should inform yourself. But as yet no one can point me to the offence committed in the circumstances posed in the first post. We need to give it a bit more time before drawing any conclusions

I quite agree the lack of prosecutions does not mean the law can be ignored, of course. But neither does it mean the law is something it isn't. The question remains - what is the law? And you can know what the law is prior to prosecution - you acquaint yourself with the law. Your sensible suggestion that it is best to inform yourself does not sit well with the claim that you can't know the law until someone is prosecuted!

This is a link to the RCR 2017 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/contents The original question (simplified) was what offence is committed in privately selling a boat that doesn't comply with the Regulations. There is some bluff & bluster about possibilities of the law changing in the future and "problems" from brokers and buyers - which are accepted in themselves - but do not address the question. But no-one has yet found the section in the RCR that would be contravened - nor has anyone (to our collective knowledge) been prosecuted.

It's not my opinion that someone can fit out a hull with total impunity - and I have never said anything remotely near that, so I'm unsure why you're taking it that way. Familiarising myself (and maybe others) with legislation is the point of this thread. You suggest that an offence is committed in the specific circumstances posed - but have not been more specific beyond saying that others (but by no means everyone) think it is. I can't yet identify the offence - so am asking if anyone else can. So far, no-one has.

Fair point - but I think we're drifting off. Consumer protection does not usually apply to private sales. In any event, what is the legislation one is legally required to meet in this context other than the RCR? So again what is the chapter and verse?

I've read through the RCR 2017 and cannot identify an offence on the premise of the original query. I could have missed it, of course, but if you think otherwise, can you point us to the relevant section please? It doesn't really cut it to say that you believe something solely because someone else believes it.

In the forlorn hope we might stay focussed, I'll ask a specific question: Assuming my boat should have complied with the RCR when built, but fell short (and continues to fall short) in some respects, what offence, if any, is committed when sold privately? Let's keep in simple and assume a private, leisure use, no broker, not in the course of a business, not imported, no major craft conversion and not self- built. Let's avoid the no-one cares/nobody will know discussion too. At the moment I can't see any RCR breach - but it's a genuine question.

It may well be correct - but was there a legal decision on this issue, please?

Best ask Diane Abbott to check your maths.