Yacht "A" gets a bad paint job...

Well, win or lose, that should pretty well put that company out of business. I'd also expect that all yacht owners, seeking new paint jobs, will be signing bullet-proof releases before a roller, brush or spray gun gets anywhere near their boats. I expect too that A's crew will now be manning paint brushes since anybody would have to be a fool to paint that yacht, or anything else they own, again.

AkzoNobel is a massive co, that can take this hit.
-
Curious. Does it really take 18 months to paint a yacht like this?

Thanks.

Wife could use 18 months in a shop also.
Ex Model?

"Ex Model?"

Bad fairing, good man-trapping skills.

I'd actually say the photographer is at fault on that one... the image is harsh.

18 months seemed excessive to me too at first, but if you start figuring how long the it will take to first remove the existing paint, re-prep the entire surface (and there is a lot of surface to prep), and then apply the new paint... 18 months doesn't seem so long.

Your talking about the ex-model rite? Yacht should take 17 months.

It may take them 18 months to find anyone drunk or stupid enough to work on that boat.

They can take a 62M pound hit? Hope you don't mind, but I'll hold off buying their stock.

My experience over the years has been that sometimes you run across those who either sue frequently or fail to pay the complete bill and dare the vendor to sue. There are also those who just like to bully. I've tried to avoid dealing with those always in disputes. In fact, I've never been involved in a suit, personally or in business. Somehow I've always been able to resolve disputes amicably.

Obviously none of us have seen the boat up close. It would also be an extremely unusual situation that would entitle the owner to any more than what he paid for the paint job.

Did the owner sue the builder back times or Starck for the design (which he even should have!)? If not, I'd say there must be some real problem with the paint job and not just an itchy lawyer syndrome, as hinted to above.

As for the risk, by the wording of an article it appears the initial bill was above 10m. If you charge this kind of money, you really should start bothering about client satisfaction.

I'm sorry, I'm still having to much fun here;
Ex model or boat??

The reality of such a contract suit can only seek damages of the cost of the contract/work order.
I would like to see the fine print in the contract/work order. By standard operating procedures, the vendor would (should) have had a lot of fine print in there protecting himself from actions such as these.
Have the defendants (paint company) made any public comments about these charges? Have they had any complaints or history before?

Still in da gutter but Inquirer level now.

Umm. It's roughly a $14 Billion (US) global company with 55,000+ employees. Pretty sure they can. And they're probably insured for such things.

On 2012 income of $1.3 Billion, they could pay 62MM pounds (@$100MM US) in 3.5 days.

And the criticism is that it's not reflective enough.

The other thing that surprises me is that it doesn't set arbitration as the first level of recourse or even binding arbitration as the only one. Now, it could be that they've already tried and failed at arbitration. That's on top of many having clear language limiting their liability. Now, what also gets interesting is that I'm sure they have enough liability insurance to cover the damages (not the amount claimed perhaps but more than reasonable damages). This may be nothing more than an effort to get the insurer to pay but most insurers are more than willing to drag litigation out forever.

These are just more reasons that everyone is best off in a situation like this settling the disagreement in a manner that both sides feel like they lost.