Brokerage from marinas

[frahkn]

A month or so ago I saw a thread saying that a marina charging a brokerage fee on the sale of a boat had been confirmed to be unlawful.

 

I cannot find it now, can anyone point me to a decided case on the issue?

 

Thanks.

Edited April 7 by frahkn

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, frahkn said:

A month or so ago I saw a thread saying that a marina charging a brokerage fee on the sale of a boat had been confirmed to be unlawful.

 

I cannot find it now, can anyone point me to a decided case on the issue?

 

Thanks.

 

If that is true - its ridiculous - next they'll be saying they cannot charge for a mooring, or any services provided.

 

Its so stupid - its probably something that the Baton Twirlers have come up with

 

Be interested to see the statement, if you can find it.

Are you thinking of this old thread where it is said that a marina selling aboat on brokerage without an RCD etc etc is unlawful ?

 

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

I suspect this might refer to some marina's practices to charge a fee even if the boat is sold by another broker or privately. That is easy enough to circumvent, but it does not stop them trying it on. I have not heard what the OP asks about but can see this may have been ruled illegal.

[Mike Coombes]

3 hours ago, frahkn said:

A month or so ago I saw a thread saying that a marina charging a brokerage fee on the sale of a boat had been confirmed to be unlawful.

 

I cannot find it now, can anyone point me to a decided case on the issue?

 

Thanks.

 

Found to be illegal within Yacht Sales. Plenty of historic stuff about this practice on the YBW Forums if you search.

 

The BMF have advised their members of the result of a court case, but some still try it on.

[wakey_wake]

2 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

I suspect this might refer to some marina's practices to charge a fee even if the boat is sold by another broker or privately. That is easy enough to circumvent, but it does not stop them trying it on.

One marina I used had a clause to that effect in the contract, which I agreed to.

 

Yes, easy to circumvent if it's a low profile sale but I wouldn't want to try bringing a case that it was unlawful. Also if the marina sees a new person asking for mooring of the same boat, or I cancel my mooring and they find it on brokerage listings, I presume they would be taking me to court for their fee?

 

Read the small print. Especially when someone tells you not to bother wasting your time reading it.

Don't agree to anything disagreeable, or make plans in advance for how you will work around it. 🤷‍♂️

 

~~~~ join?

 

To be clear, I think it's an objectionable clause because it presumes rights over my property which extend past the nature of the business I wanted. However I was 100% sure I would not be selling, so it made no difference to me.

[Yank on the Cut]

In the dim and distant past, though it still sticks in my mind, as a newbie BWML marina manager I tried to enforce the mooring contract clause stipulating commission to be paid to the marina if the boat is sold on marina premises even if the marina had no involvement. The vendor was a policeman who promptly threatened all manner of things if I interfered further in the boat being taken away (it was a cruiser on a trailer). 

 

The clause was present in the contract but practically unenforceable and far too many easy ways to avoid it anyway.

[Mike Todd]

14 hours ago, wakey_wake said:

One marina I used had a clause to that effect in the contract, which I agreed to.

 

Yes, easy to circumvent if it's a low profile sale but I wouldn't want to try bringing a case that it was unlawful. Also if the marina sees a new person asking for mooring of the same boat, or I cancel my mooring and they find it on brokerage listings, I presume they would be taking me to court for their fee?

 

Read the small print. Especially when someone tells you not to bother wasting your time reading it.

Don't agree to anything disagreeable, or make plans in advance for how you will work around it. 🤷‍♂️

 

~~~~ join?

 

To be clear, I think it's an objectionable clause because it presumes rights over my property which extend past the nature of the business I wanted. However I was 100% sure I would not be selling, so it made no difference to me.

You cannot necessarily get the business you want, only that which is bring sold.

 

In this case, as you say, it included the clause to which you object but which you concluded not a problem at the time. Every deal involves weighing pros and cons.

2 hours ago, Yank on the Cut said:

In the dim and distant past, though it still sticks in my mind, as a newbie BWML marina manager I tried to enforce the mooring contract clause stipulating commission to be paid to the marina if the boat is sold on marina premises even if the marina had no involvement. The vendor was a policeman who promptly threatened all manner of things if I interfered further in the boat being taken away (it was a cruiser on a trailer). 

 

The clause was present in the contract but practically unenforceable and far too many easy ways to avoid it anyway.

I suspect that you were wanting to enforce a clause different from the one in the mooring contract.

[Yank on the Cut]

59 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

You cannot necessarily get the business you want, only that which is bring sold.

 

In this case, as you say, it included the clause to which you object but which you concluded not a problem at the time. Every deal involves weighing pros and cons.

I suspect that you were wanting to enforce a clause different from the one in the mooring contract.

Not at all, Mike. The clause was unequivocable.

[wakey_wake]

7 minutes ago, Yank on the Cut said:

Not at all, Mike. The clause was unequivocable.

There is a difference between "if the boat is sold, you must pay us" and "when the boat is sold, we may stop it leaving until we are paid". (For example.)

 

The sort of difference that mortals can stumble across and get tripped up by, then lawyers come to nitpick about it later. 😞

I have no real understanding of what a 'lien' is, but it's a word that surfaces from the murky memories.

 

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

You cannot necessarily get the business you want, only that which is bring sold.

 

In this case, as you say, it included the clause to which you object but which you concluded not a problem at the time. Every deal involves weighing pros and cons.

At the time, that marina had enough of what I needed so I paid the price - financial, and other expected inconveniences which turned out to have silver linings anyway.

 

To any marinas considering trying such a clause, I would say the hidden costs probably outweigh any benefits. This is extremely clear when you hear what other boaters say behind the marina owner's back! The hassle cost must be high as well, because I also heard stories of 'troublesome departures'.

 

In my case it becomes just a business decision to move elsewhere so I gave my notice and moved. That marina is left with an empty spot, and the new one... has an atmosphere that encourages stronger loyalty.

[Yank on the Cut]

6 minutes ago, wakey_wake said:

There is a difference between "if the boat is sold, you must pay us" and "when the boat is sold, we may stop it leaving until we are paid". (For example.)

 

The sort of difference that mortals can stumble across and get tripped up by, then lawyers come to nitpick about it later. 😞

I have no real understanding of what a 'lien' is, but it's a word that surfaces from the murky memories.

 

At the time, that marina had enough of what I needed so I paid the price - financial, and other expected inconveniences which turned out to have silver linings anyway.

 

To any marinas considering trying such a clause, I would say the hidden costs probably outweigh any benefits. This is extremely clear when you hear what other boaters say behind the marina owner's back! The hassle cost must be high as well, because I also heard stories of 'troublesome departures'.

 

In my case it becomes just a business decision to move elsewhere so I gave my notice and moved. That marina is left with an empty spot, and the new one... has an atmosphere that encourages stronger loyalty.

I wasn't defending the practice at all, simply as a newbie trying to do my job. The vendor made it very clear he was not going to pay and was upset we had learnt about, by accident, when the buyer told us he had just bought it and wanted to take it away.

[wakey_wake]

4 minutes ago, Yank on the Cut said:

I wasn't defending the practice at all, simply as a newbie trying to do my job. The vendor made it very clear he was not going to pay and was upset we had learnt about, by accident, when the buyer told us he had just bought it and wanted to take it away.

To the circumventions, add

 

Finding some bluster to intimidate the staff (who have little incentive to uphold the marina's rights in the face of it), which is not very nice.

 

Agreeing with the buyer that "if it should turn out that brokerage fees fall due to the marina, then the buyer shall pay them". Then both parties to the actual sale have an incentive to work together, and the vendor is probably off the hook.

 

AIUI, all it needs is for the sale to be agreed on the bank outside, plus there to be no discoverable evidence of advertising the sale publicly. Then it's a private sale that could have happened in the pub... "I'm tired of my boat, I may sell it soon". "Oh I really liked it, will you take ££xxx for it?"

[Mike Todd]

19 hours ago, Yank on the Cut said:

I wasn't defending the practice at all, simply as a newbie trying to do my job. The vendor made it very clear he was not going to pay and was upset we had learnt about, by accident, when the buyer told us he had just bought it and wanted to take it away.

So, the clause stipulated what you could or could not do whilst your boat was in the marina. In the face if it, quite reasonable but does not impact on what happens when the boat is not in the marina.