part 2: Northern Marine 90' Yacht Capsizes Upon Launch...!

What I cannot understand, is why would you build a boat that you need to add that much loose ballast to in order for it to maintain stability. Why not build it with a lead keel or something during the build process, that's well a little more permanent than throwing 20-40tons of loose ballast at it after you launch it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Hi Bliss,

Good sleuthing, but for liability reasons I have to remove the identity of the buyer in your post. Sorry.

Carl

I think what people may be referencing is a "performance bond", which provides the money for completion upon a default, etc. Don't know how common they are in the maritime world, but they are very common in land use here n NY - developer provides the bond and uses its bonding capabilities to obtain the bond. No bonding credit - no contract. It does add to the contract price, but only marginally.

Quite common in construction. Often used to eliminate unqualified contractors as well. Not aware of them being used in boat building although in theory they could be.

YF, without reposting the removed post; its only point was that the owner did not have far to go in his search for legal assistance.

Not to put to fine a point on it, performance bonds are NOT insurance. They are not intended to, nor do they indemnify. They guaranty performance. If the bonded contractor cannot perform, the bond issuer is obligated to complete the work contracted. The inability of the original contractor to complete leads to a world of hurt. The bond company usually winds up owning everything the contracting company had.

There is an axiom or premise in the bond business. You cannot learn the bond business 'til you suffer a lose. Sign: "How do you learn the bond business?" Counter Sign: "Have a lose." How do I know?

Bliss

As I disclosed, I am not familiar with the maritime protocols nor your bad experience (?), but in land use in New York, performance bonds pay the costs on a default up to the policy limits for a second contractor, and, if drawn correctly, that contractor is selected by the land owner. A properly drawn NY bond will also indemnify for the attorney fees of the owners to collect the bond if coverage is disclaimed and ultimately resolved against the bonding company. Just thought the concept might be helpful for in build owners.

Hi,

I have experience with build contracts where the risk of the builder failing is covered by a specific insurance.

Danielle Butler wrote an excellent article for Boat Intl. a couple of years ago. Search : " Conflicts and Contracts" watertight yacht build contracts.

Actually they have quite a few articles on the subject. And the contracts, insurance, and ownership issues are very important. But any of that only takes partial care of a situation once something bad happens. Good contracts and protection is important but nothing is more important than the selection of the builder to start with. A lot of attention in how to fix a mess once it happens but avoidance is still the best course.

Again, I use a well developed contract, I insure, I limit progress payments and all those things good lawyers make sure you do. But I also only choose to do business with builders who have track records and standing that gives a great likelihood of a smooth, problem free build. Like so many other areas, prevention is the best cure. Still even with the best builder there are events that can happen. Things like fires, tornadoes, hurricanes.

There is one other benefit of well written contracts and protection. It shows up front that you do have expectations that everything will be done professionally and you intend, if necessary, to insure that is the case.

One last point. When you do have a good contract protecting you, you need to be prepared if necessary to use it. I'm not talking about building something major out of a minor issue. But I am talking about situations that develop early that show there are problems. When the builder shows at the outset they are either incapable or otherwise not going to meet their obligations as laid out in the contract, that is they time to take action and get out. Otherwise all problems just compound. Look at the worst situations and you'll see dates missed and new agreements, requests for more advances of money, more contract revisions. You will see time after time during the process that the builder failed to meet the contract terms and yet each time made new promises and the buyer went along. That's how you turn a $2 million exposure or loss into $10 million. That is irrational escalation of commitment.

Also if you have either a bond or insurance, each time you approve exceptions or agree to changes you do lessen your position there. You must not agree to modifications of the contract without approval of the bonding party or insurer.

Anything can be insured against for a price. Just in some cases it becomes cost prohibitive. Then that may well be a sign it's something you shouldn't do. I've insured with Lloyd's against everything from a boat build to war to terrorism. The more inclusive the policy, the more expensive.

The first can happen anywhere, particularly when things are not going well. The other two however are more of a location of the builder issue so will not be an issue in most parts of the world.

Surely to this falls well into the common sense basket.

The most astute businessman often loses all common sense when it comes to something as personal as their boat. They become blinded by their desire for the boat. It almost has the same influence on them a woman might.

Builders like to include verbiage in contracts such as "To industry standards"
And in until recently, contracts were very vague on final coatings, mil thickness and reflectivity, percentage of acceptable debris in the top coat etc. More litigation seems to happen if the final Stages of the build when a builder can't seem to produce a acceptable finish on a yacht and it becomes a "take it or pay more to fix it" situation. Now there are a few good coating specialists working to change this. Forward thinking from a solid build team and good contract negotiating will eliminate 99 percent of a dissatisfied owner in the end.

I verily agree that a well drafted set of purchase documents should do nothing more than collect dust and turn yellow with age, BUT, when you need them they'd better be drafted properly.

Included in well drafted documents, imo, should be a clause stating that acceptance of work at variance with the build documents and drawings shall not be considered waiver of any right under the agreement.

Do owner's reps play a big role in yacht building? I would hope so...

Captholli

I don't have any experience with yacht construction docs, but in land use one of the most important docs is the architectural drawing with specs. Good architects even go so far as to provide a "typical" detail drawing of how he expects cabinetry to be mitred.

In yacht builds, clients are required to initial acceptance to a full set of drawings including general arraignments and outboard profiles just to name a few. The majority of builders use CAD CAM for the drafting and then in the manufacturing phase of construction. The client has excellent 3-D renderings to go by and add / subtract the the things that he / she needs to have incorporated but once signed off on as the " builder drawings" any changes from there on out are going to cost you dearly. computers are controlled by humans and it's not at all unfathomable to have a fuel manifold situated where you can't remove a valve body without moving a few other things that were computer generated on top of it. Good software is always evolving.

They do but unfortunately like any business there are those that roll for the yards and those who don't.

This unfortunately does happen from time to time.

While observing equipment under 102' Polar Bear from another Thread, definitely noticed a difference when compared to the Northern Marine 90' Yacht at its launching.

New video/imgaines

posted by YachtVid on Youtube claiming Baden is currently being "restored".