New Princess 55 - Quality Control problems?

Blog is a serious mistake at this point. You need to resolve your legal situation first before taking to the web. If your intent is to get out of your junk boat then a lawyer is your route since you seem incapable of handling it with the dealer and builder. You're not talking about quality problems, you're talking about a severely damaged boat that is not new.

Do the blog only after you've resolved your problems. Now is not the time. I'm sure a lawyer will advise you to "keep your mouth shut."

Wise advise, can the blog route unless you are committed to keeping a "new" vessel that was anything but and destroying any future resale value for your own boat.

Worth repeating.

So you decided seeking revenge online was more important than trying to get out of the deal. Your money, your right, but it will not end well for you with that approach. You were delivered a used damaged boat and yet seem determined to battle on rather than get the sale rescinded. Now, you've declared a public war against a company that can, to quote Kevin OLeary, "smush you like a bug".

So what did your lawyer say about this blog thing?

I read your comment;;; You do not have an attorney working your case..Your doing this all by your self..
I'll be disconnecting this thread from my dash board. There are many meat heads out there who take advise from us, they will usually come out ahead. You will not.

This question is HIGHLY dependent on the purchasing contract and the warranty language contained inside that purchasing contract. If you used a competent maritime lawyer to guide you through the initial purchasing and contracting phase, you're probably protected, contractually. If you didn't use a competent maritime lawyer to protect your interests - in writing - then you could be in for a world of hurt. Sadly, you wouldn't be alone. I'm stunned how frequently people will drop 7-figures on a boat without advice of experienced maritime counsel, instead relying on the 'legal expertise' of their broker.

I don't know much about consumer protection laws and how/if they apply in the UK, but here in the US, production boats are generally viewed like any other consumer product and these transactions are largely governed by the FTC, federal statutory laws like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and any applicable state laws. But, unlike automobile and (some) home purchases that do enjoy special protections for the consumer in both federal and many state laws, purchasing a boat in the US requires a healthy dose of caveat emptor. If you make a bad purchase (a purchase of a boat where buyer protections aren't expressly included in the purchase agreement) and that purchase can't be/won't be remedied by the manufacturer or reseller, your only real course of action is litigation, which can be laughably expensive in very short order. And, unless the buyer is smart enough to refuse an arbitration clause when signing the purchasing documents, litigation limited to arbitration is likely to only provide diminishing returns.

Thus, I suspect many American boat owners would recommend that you do what you can to work out the issues before going public because once you have gone public, much of the motivation a manufacturer/reseller might have for settling amicably, evaporates because you've already done whatever damage you can do.

If the blog is honest, there won't be any bug smushing.

I am confused by your reply to motoryachtlover as he's not the OP. He's not the one who's starting the blog about their Princess.

The blog isn't as much a matter of law as it is one of attitude and human nature. When you enter into public attacks against someone then their willingness to try to enter into a reasonable agreement tends to disappear or greatly diminish. No incentive for them to settle with you to avoid bad publicity as you've already given them bad publicity. The best settlements are negotiated in a cordial manner. Lawyers are best to avoid litigation, not enter into it. The second best way of reaching a settlement is generally to do so in private even if it gets heated. Let the lawyer be the bad guy, not you, at that point. I have seen many who were prepared to try to help, stop all assistance when things were posted online, like in his blog. A blog isn't considered an effort to settle a situation, but an effort to attack and discredit. That may give some personal relief but doesn't lead toward a financial resolution.

The other thing is that anything written on forums and in a blog is admissible as legal evidence if things went that far. Party B sues Party A for non-performance, Party A countersues for slander. Now the OP says he's just posted facts but I'll guarantee you some of his "facts" would be disputed by the other party.

Lawyers typically tell clients to shut up. They want the focus on the legal situation.

If the facts are as the OP presents them then he should be able to get the sale rescinded based on the condition of the boat and it clearly not meeting the standard of a new boat. If the facts are as he described, this boat has been through something serious. It's been dropped or neglected or hit by a storm or something. The initial approach would be to tell the manufacturer and get them to admit a mistake and rescind. The more serious approach if that didn't work is fraudulent misrepresentation.

However, in a situation like this, one shouldn't follow the advice given on a forum or anywhere else. It's a legal matter, you need an attorney and you need to do what they say. They can interview you and get the full facts and then advise you. We can't ask all the questions. We haven't even gotten the ones we asked answered. We haven't seen the sales contract. I have many questions I'd ask the OP, before advising him, if I was his attorney.

I should of quoted the OP more correctly. Assumed by the comments of asking about the laws,I thought it was the OP.
Only proves two parties posting blogs with out any legal advice before hand.

That statement is only true for execs who are too full of pride to exercise damage control and stop the bleeding. You even contradict your own statement above in post #23 with the following: "Even so, I'd expect Princess to apply real pressure. Anything other than helping the OP can lead to serious damage to their reputation."

Actually I don't contradict myself as now the damage is already done. As to "smush like a bug" if OP turns it ugly, then that means they can afford far more legal fees than he can. Not fair, not right, but fact. Blogging before pursuing all other remedies is unwise and every lawyer I know would advise strongly against it. It's not conducive to a settlement. Doesn't mean it makes it impossible, just less easy to achieve.

The boat was manufactured in the UK. There is always a venue and choice of law clause in every contract. Here it would be the UK. I know of no maritime attorney no matter how good who could change that provision. It is a logical and important provision to the manufacturer. They don’t want to sell a boat and find out that they are being sued in some distant country with a suspect legal system. They insist on controlling the venue.

With that said one needs to understand the UK system. First lawyers are very expensive there, even more so then the USA. If it goes beyond letter writing and other pre litigation attempts then it is only the cost of money to that point.

But if suit is filed then the law is in the UK that the loser pays the winners legal fees and costs. Meaning you pay all you very expensive legal fees and then pay the legal fees and costs of the boat builder. Not knowing the cost of the boat it well could exceed that cost.

I would not be in someone else’s hometown and their country with such a large downside if you lose. It can only be resolved if the boatbuilder is willing to do so voluntarily.

I agree voluntary with the boat builder is by far the best option and he's never answered the question regarding any conversations with the builder rather than just the retail location. He seems set on getting the boat fixed rather than getting the sale rescinded. An attorney knowledgeable in UK contract law could provide him good input. Blogging isn't a way to have the best chance of working out a solution with the builder. Neither is litigation.

Of course you contradicted yourself. The damage isn't a finite amount that's limited to the initial publicity. The damage is growing with time, so, there's an incentive to fix the problem. That blog is a running tale of the problem.

The OP has shown no signs of turning it ugly, so still no reason to fear bug smushing. If the blog is honest, all of the bug smushers money will be useless.

I'm not surprised that every lawyer you know would strongly advise against blogging before pursuing all other remedies. They're lawyers and are into lawyering. Blogging is like the local TV news people who go after crooked roofers, used car dealers, lenders, insurance companies, etc. that don't deliver on what they are supposed to. The TV news people get results without lawyers, because the "crooks" don't want any more bad publicity.