Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=96278

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Lets keep it clean, no hits below the belt, and lets see the best man win. :cool:

Popcorn, b!tches?? :evilb:

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Uh O. Better wait to hear Mr.Cozzi's side :eek: :rolleyes: sumralleee or sumraller ... Rodney (Just Perfect) is local NJ boy too ... hope he doesn't cozzi on too long about this.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

:eek:

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

I told Ed about it yesterday morning on the phone, he told me the story. When Ed answers back you'll see Ed's side, I did right away. He did a great survey for me, check was mailed out yesterday and by the end of next week I'll be a Tiger owner:D. I have nothing but praise for him and the professional way he represents his company.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Just a question:

What exactly was wriiten on the survey pertaining to the engines?

I had an Insurance Survey done by a different surveyor that didn't necessarily go through the engines but I knew that up front, but he still put in the description and serial numbers for the engines on the survey. If they ever had to be replaced due to a loss, they had to have that information.

If I were to have a Full Survey then they would have gone through the engines. I personally knew the boat, so I didn't need the Full Survey.

I would think the engines would have had to been described with serial and model numbers on this survey in question.
Was the information correct? Did the previous owner change out an engine after the survey?
I'll sit back to hear the explanations on this one. ;)

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Basically, what Ed told me was the differences in the engines that the gentleman described can only be noticed if things were taken apart, as a surveyor, Ed is not allowed to do that. His insurance that the consumer is talking about as explained by Ed,is the same type of shop keepers insurance that I have to carry. Ed is NOT allowed to take anything apart, with the exception of spark plugs for compression checks. What his insurance covers in his words" Say on a yacht he was checking a petcock, and later that night the boat started taking on water from said petcock, then his insurance would take effect."
Insurance will not cover an internal engine problem,approx ONE YEAR, after the original survey was done.Especially with a "motor change"

It's just my opinion, I feel that the consumer is looking for someone to blame. Sorry Rodney, thats just the way I see it.


Rob

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

By what means is a surveyor to detect an issue such as this? Should he do a back search on the sereal # to autenticate the power? What if a motor was rebuilt and an inferior cam and heads where used (I've seen that)? I think the question lies in what you hire the surveyor to do. If you wanted more informatoin than he felt he was hired to give you, then this should have been clear from the begining. The guy bought a used boat, and got screwed by the prevous owner. No survey in the world is going to find every flaw. The guy needs to suck it up, we all get scrwed once in a while.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Good Morning Gentlemen and Ladies:

First of all let me thank the thread starter for getting this started on a forum where we do not have to wait days before the threads are posted. There is my reply pending in the Bad Business section, but you may not see it for days. I will attach two pages of the original survey and a color photograph of the engine compartment as evidence.

This boat was donated to a charitable organization here in Ft. Lauderdale. They advertised it at a very reasonable price and I was contracted to perform a survey and sea trial on this craft. As you can see on the Sea Trial page of the survey, the port engine was running very poorly. This engine was confirmed to be a real HP 500, because it was removed from the boat later, (not as part of the survey), but as part of the repair and upgrading after the buyer had purchased the boat.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Here is a photograph of the engine compartment.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Here are two pages of the survey that I enter into evidence.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

I tried to reply to the post all day yesterday, but for some reason I couldn't. It appears you did what you were asked to do, a "standard" survey not a mechanical survey. Apples and oranges.

The problem is lack of knowledge by the buyer.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

So Ed,
The boat did have 2- 500hp engines in the boat at the time of the survey, just one was in need of a rebuild? Obviously you reported the engine was running poorly. Perhaps with that information then, the buyer at that time should have negotiated a better price for the repair of the poorly running engine...
Hope all turns out ok for the both of you....

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Please note the last half of the first sentence on page one.
A surveyor cannot do destructive removals as part of a survey.

As you can see from the photo, IF THIS ENGINE IS, IN FACT, A 415 LONG BLOCK WITH 500 ACCESSORIES, that both engines look identical from the outside, which is where a surveyor is allowed to view them from. The difference would be the cam and rocker arms. These are internal parts that would require destructive removals to detect and would exceed the scope of the survey.

Please note that the starboard engine ran perfectly throughout the time the boat was here in South Florida. All engine problems were on the port side with only minor leaks repaired and adjustments done to the starboard engine.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

After a successful sea trial here, where both engines ran perfectly for the buyer and his wife, the boat was shipped to New Jersey. This was around early March 2004 if my memory serves me correctly.
Early in July the buyer contacts me and says that the starboard engine is a 415 with 500 accessories. For the record both engines turned the same RPM on the final sea trial and both ran perfectly until we ran out of fuel. (Never believe a gas gauge on a boat.).

In mid-July I was contacted by the buyers attorney that they are planning to sue me for $20,000 in damages, but they will settle for $17,500. Maybe a little much for a cam and set of roller rockers and the labor, don't you think?

The attorneys wanted me to submit this claim to my insurance company. I tried to explain to everybody that I have liability insurance through SAMS, but Errors & Omission insurance costs more than I make each year. Very few surveyors I know have it.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

I think all post in that forum have to go thru an "administrative review" before they are posted to the thread so it may take a bit for it to be read and approved or not

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

I'm not sure if the price was re-negotiated or not, as I was not privy to that part of the deal.

Thanks, so do I.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Just a question:

Would the model numbers and serials numbers reveal what the engines were from OEM?

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Fred: I have responded in the Bad Business section, but it could be days before it appears. I'm sure this thread is okay as long as it remains polite.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

I was pretty sure when I posted that Ed hadn't seen it. He is no shrinking violet and I figured he would have responded there if he had known the thread was up.

I think the Bad Business forum is kind of inneffective due to the fact people don't check it very often. A thread could be up about a person for a couple of weeks before they knew to respond. During that time, people could be getting bad information. (just my .02)

With regard to the timing cover being an obvious clue that the engine was a 415hp, wouldn't you have to pull the engine to see that sort of thing? Wouldn't the bell housing block that from view? My memory of bravo bellhousings is sketchy.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Another reason I am not wild about the Bad Business Forum. :rolleyes:

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Yes, but remember that all the accessories were allegedly transferred from the original engine to the new long block. The numbers would move with the flame arrestor. I believe that the number is also on a tag on the bell housing, but I couldn't see it as we never had to pull the starboard from the boat. Remember, the suspect engine ran flawlessly the whole time the boat was in my possession.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

They have to do that in order to satisfy that they arent allowing people to slander, therefore putting OSO in the middle of a liable suit. I would expect nothing less from them. You have to CYA, look at what Ed is going through now. someone always wants something for nothing, and I'm quite sure, that the attorney is working on a commission, and thats the only reason it got this far.


Sue used to be a girls name...Now it's a verb

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Ed,

You did nothing wrong. Don't let lawyers intimidate you. Just stick to the facts and the matter will resolve itself.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

With regard to the timing cover being an obvious clue that the engine was a 415hp, wouldn't you have to pull the engine to see that sort of thing? Wouldn't the bell housing block that from view? My memory of bravo bellhousings is sketchy.[/QUOTE]

The timing cover is in the front behind the circulating water pump.
Just because the engine is a Gen VI doesn't mean it isn't a HP500. They were available both ways in 1996 as the supply of Gen V's ran out, they were replaced with Gen VI's.
Remember, the whole time I had this boat, the starboard engine ran perfectly. There was no reason to pay THAT much attention to it. While the port engine was out I put in new NGK spark plugs, just because it was so much easier with one engine out.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Ed:

I have litigated a few cases representing real estate agents whose customers (buyers) were burned by poor inspections. Most home inspectors' contracts have pretty strong exculpatory language that limits their liability to a refund of the cost of the inspection. (The buyers then go after the real estate agents because they need someone with adequate insurance to blame and try and collect from.) I haven't seen your standard engagement letter and/or contract, but if it has a limitation of liability, it is,most likely, enforceable. Do not give in to the phknlwyr's threats. I hope it all works out.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

DOH!! Note to self -- do not post in the morning before drinking coffee!!! :D

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

I posted this in my response to the original "Bad Business Section" post.

While the boat was here this buyer spent $5,854.62 with me to repair, upgrade, detail and shrink wrap this boat prior to shipping to New Jersey.
He still owes me a balance of $1,004.62 on this original bill.
Do you suppose this whole thing is just something he has started to justify not paying the balance?

He did pay for the survey, so I didn't get Sumralled there!

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Just seen this in the paper the other day:


Court rules Web sites not liable for postings
Says federal law offers immunity
Published in the Asbury Park Press 02/1/05
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Web site operators are not liable for electronic messages posted by anonymous visitors, even if the content of the postings is intentionally malicious or potentially libelous, an appeals court ruled Monday.

The Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court ruled that Stephen Moldow, whose "Eye on Emerson" Web site contained information on local government activities and included a discussion forum, was immune from liability under a provision of federal communications law. The panel's decision affirmed a ruling by a lower court.

"We accomplished what we needed to accomplish — to purge the town of this Web site," said Gina Calogero, one of two Emerson council members who sued Moldow, the site's publisher, for damages. Calogero and Vincent Donato, who both resigned from council in 2002, claimed the site's electronic bulletin board contained negative messages from third parties, which attacked them professionally and personally.

It was not immediately clear when the Web site was dismantled. A call to Richard Mahoney, the lawyer representing Moldow, was not returned Monday.
Fictitiously named anonymous posters were also named in the suit, though the claim against the fictitious defendants ultimately was dropped.

The defendants argued that Moldow had "actively participated in selective editing, deletion and rewriting of anonymously posted messages," and therefore was responsible for the content of the postings.

The appeals panel disagreed, saying Congress has crafted rules for electronic publishers that differ significantly from those for publishers of print materials, granting "broad immunity" to e-publishers in its 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Calogero, however, said she believed the ruling allows for situations in which Web masters could be held liable for the content of others within the narrow confines of the federal law.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Ed -

Maybe you need to do credit checks on your customers from now on ! :D

I just don't see the issue here...a mechanical survey - which in my opinion would've been necessary to determine the engine questions in play here - is VERY different than a structual survey which is what was furnished.

Just my .02.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

You know Wes, I always try to do the right thing by people. That's why my home phone number is on my business card, as I have never had to hide from anybody. I've always tried to set a good example for my children by being honest and stand-up when dealing with people.

If I honestly miss something in a survey, and it happens sometimes, I make it good. Not because I'm afraid of being sued, but I feel I let that customer down who trusted me to look out for his interests. I run my whole life that way because that's how I was brought up.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Agreed! All in favor,Say I :D

While it is an unfortunate incident, I just don't see where Ed would be liable. If he would have caught it (I don't see how, they look identical in the pic) that would have been great. Just remember folks...It's buyer beware, I know that this may come as a surprize to many people, but some boat salesmen aren't honest!!! :D :eek: :drink:

DO NOT give in, and report this guy to a collection agency!

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

[QUOTE=craig223]Agreed! All in favor,Say I :D
I know that this may come as a surprize to many people, but some boat salesmen aren't honest!!! :D /QUOTE]

LMAO!! Your kidding right? :rolleyes: :D

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

<GASP!> really? say it ain't so !!! ;)

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

In defense of that boat salesman for that donation company:

Unless he had X-ray vision, how would he know that the long-block of the starboard engine had a different cam and rocker arms than the port engine IF IN FACT THIS IS TRUE? Don't forget that this allegation was made long after the boat was in New Jersey that the engines were different.

If the original owner popped that engine and paid someone to replace it, maybe HE never knew the engines were different either. He may have PAID for a HP500 long-block, but got a 415.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

:eureka:

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Ed, Maybe they do match. Did he pull a valve cover off the other engine? I think you mentioned the rpm matched. Maybe they both have the same cam and non-roller rockers. Just a thought. Doug

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

That sounds like a likely scenario. Start digging there if the need arises.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Doesn't the Block itself have a stamping on it to tell exactly what it was from the factory?

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

I think Ed Cozzi did his job correctly. I think the buyer should go after the seller if this is in fact true.

Re: Ummm. Maybe you didn't see this...
 

Based on the info so far.....I'm with Cozzi. Good Luck.