I don't believe you are. You did not seek to deceive him, you sold him what you honestly believed it was.
The onus was on him to do his research before he bought the boat, not afterwards.
Dig out the receipt from when you bought the boat and the insurance papers from while you owned it and hold these for evidence should he try and sue you.
I don't agree and believe the new buyer would have a legitimate claim. I think that while Asc did not deliberately try and decieve the buyer, he/she will still be liable to return the money and get the boat back because it is not what was agreed upon in the contract to purchase (irrespective what Asc believed, or insured for, the boat is not what was advertised so the new buyer has full recourse). Asc will however have a case against the company he bought the boat from originally but subject to whether it's worth chasing, and will need proof from an expert.
I thought buyer research responsibility only went as far as discovering any liability or condition issues, and not forgery or false advertising (be it deliberate or not).
If I were the new buyer I would definatley be going to court over this.
I have to agree with Eddy. Caveat Emptor does not apply in this instance as the boat was advertised/sold as something it wasnt, and buyer purchased it under these conditions.
Although you were under the impression that it was A Searay Bowrider, you did not intend to mislead or attempt fraud, however the buyer thought he was purchasing a legitimate SeaRay Bowrider and therefore has grounds to claim.
DoogleMcFroogle 2018-09-19 11:30:20
Despite the misgivings in the previous post I don't think the OP has anything to worry about. If it was me I'd sit back and see if the purchaser tries to take any action.
You have a good defence against fraud and I believe a good defence against selling an inferior boat, as during the time you owned it, you never had any reason to suspect that it wasn't what it was claimed to be.
Even now you have no way of knowing if the new purchaser is trying to commit a fraud against you by claiming that it is a copy. It may not be.
Sit back do nothing, if the bloke sues you present your evidence and make him prove that the boat is inferior to what it is claimed to be.
I wouldn't even bother employing a legal representative. At worst if any judgement goes against you, you may be ordered to repay a few thousand. At best the complainant may be told, 'You paid $x for a y ft boat, you got a y ft boat, go away'.
Thank you all for taking the time to supply the info. Something else which may be of interest is that he employed a marine/boat mechanic to inspect the motor, traier and boat prior to purchase. After over an hour of extensive detail the mechanic said that the negotiated price was a good price to buy it at and the seller handed the money over. It is only after the mechanic went to transfer rego that the discovery was made. If anything the buyer may have a case against the mechanic as he paid for a service which, if the claims are true, he did not receive.
I think I will dig up as much documentation on the boat from my purchase as I can find and wait to see if I receive any contact from a legal perspective.
It wasn't the mechanic's responsibility to determine forgery, but rather to check condition, which he did, so there is no negligence against him.
So there is now also some evidence to support the buyer in proving a fraudulent transaction (whatever came out of the rego transfer attempt) - this will support his case, and he/she may proceed with legal action on this basis.
How come you didn't pick this up when the rego was transferred into you name when you bought the boat? The judge will ask you this question to determine if you were deliberately fraudulent or not. I mean, it looks reasonable that you would have known the boat wasn't authentic.
[QUOTE=Eddy] It wasn't the mechanic's responsibility to determine forgery, but rather to check condition, which he did, so there is no negligence against him.[/QUOTE]
The mechanic was a professional employed by the buyer to assess the condition of the boat, of course he should have spotted a forgery, if it was.
I suspect it's a case of buyer remorse and the story about discovering the history when transferring registration is just that, a story.
Stick to your guns OP, and let the buyer take action if he thinks he has a case.
citizen-joe 2018-09-19 19:50:36