Good morning,
I have a situation and need advice concerning a boat purchase verbal contract.

I entered into a contract to buy a boat from a private seller. There was no written agreement; only oral. He told me that the cost to transport to boat to my city (Charleston, SC) should be around $1500, and that the cost of insurance was small. He never gave an actual figure. When I started looking into transportation options, the avg price to transport was over $3K my selected insurance company required me get 30-35 hours of professional Captain instruction before I was covered personally, which will cost more than $3K.

I told him 4 days after the agreement that I didn't know how I would be able to continue the purchase, but never fully backed out. He cashed my $1K deposit 4 days AFTER that conversation.

He now says the contract is void and is retaining my deposit. Can I get it back?

You will probably have to take him to small claims court to get your money back. Your fault was entering into an oral contract to buy the boat. For the amount of money you were going to spend, in my estimation should have been well documented just in case someone was going to reneg on the purchase.

Tick

...
He now says the contract is void and is retaining my deposit. Can I get it back?

You perhaps could if the contract were indeed void. But you committed an andicipatory breach of the arguably valid contract. Either that, or it was an executory contract which you failed to execute (perform). That would be the difference. On the basis of that, a deposit is non-refundable if breached (or not executed) by the person making the contract.

I say "arguably valid" because there is a substantial question is raised by his statements about transportation and insurance. These statements were, assuming your insurance quote is the best you can get, false. As a result, the contract would be invalid as being founded upon a mutual mistake of fact.

The title of this thread suggests a question about the Florida Stature of Frauds. This (http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2010/672.201), which is a part of the Uniform Commercial Code would seem to apply. The contract would seem to be barred by the terms of this SOF, except for, probably, the fact of the deposit.

Thank you both for your replies.

tickle: Yes, it should have been in writing, but doesn't that responsibility now fall on the party that has received the funds?

AK Lawyer: The insurance quote is not the best that I can get; I can go with a company I've never heard of, but to go through my insurance (which the company who I chose to insure my possessions is mine alone, not his to decide) it will require that additional instruction at a $3K (roughly) cost. I certainly can get insurance coverage that does not require any instruction, but it is not from my insurance company, and that's who insures all of my possessions.

Thank you again for your assistance; it is much appreciated.

... I certainly can get insurance coverage that does not require any instruction ...

So any misrepresentation or mistake about insurance doesn't apply. The transportation discrepency is about $1,500. That's probably within the ball bark.

If you don't want to loose your deposit you probably will have to go through with the deal. Then either re-sell it where it is, or pay the shipping and hope to flip (re-sell, not capsize) it when you get it home.

tickle: Yes, it should have been in writing, but doesn't that responsibilty now fall on the party that has received the funds?Hello b:

No. You BOTH want the other to perform, so WHY is it HIS problem that the contract wasn't in writing??

In my view, he gave you the best estimate of the costs he could. That you RELIED upon it, is on you. That you didn't check about needing an expensive license, is on you. That you don't want to buy CHEAP insurance, is on you.

The bottom line is that it's NOT his responsibility to guard YOUR rights... I don't think you have a case.

excon

While I'm certainly not happy with this answer as it's not favorable, your comment on flipping made me laugh. This individual has been trying to sell that boat for 3 months, so I don't think it's very feasible to believe that I'd be able to do much better and I'd still then have to pay for a slip while not using it. Looks like I'll just have to suck it up.

I do agree with what you're saying, but I was wonding if the fact that the Statute of Frauds mandates a written contract to be valid if the property is over $500 give me any hope. If it were valid, I have no case. If not, then I might.

Problem is that, as I said, the deposit probably takes the contract out of the SOF.

One additional item I'd like to add. I've never told him that the deal was off, and the way we left the conversation was that I was going to continue to see what I could do to keep our deal. He then cashed the deposit, and told me that the deal was off. We never defined a concrete timeline for me to take ownership, only that I'd hoped to take possession within a couple of weeks.

He said that the contract was nullified by my saying that I didn't know how I was going to make it work with these additional unforseen expenses, and then, according to his words "out of his graceousness will give me until Friday (today) at midnight to take possession" or he's selling it to someone that's coming to look at it tomorrow. My issue is that I never backed out and was working on my end to see how I could still get the boat.

I don't want to take ownership until I've completed the required training, and since we didn't concretely define a timeline, is he legally allowed to keep the deposit and sell the boat to someone else when I haven't breached? If not, is there a set amount of time that I must take ownership, e.g, is he allowed to force a deadline on me after deposit has been paid and to which was not agreed previous to deposit rendering? I'm not trying to be pestering, I just want to know the law concerning this.

Many, many thanks to you all for your time.

Thank you for your advice and for taking the time to help. I hope you have a wonderful day.

... according to his words "out of his graceousness will give me until Friday (today) at midnight to take possession" or he's selling it to someone that's coming to look at it tomorrow. My issue is that I never backed out and was working on my end to see how I could still get the boat.

... is there a set amount of time that I must take ownership, e.g, is he allowed to force a deadline on me after deposit has been paid and to which was not agreed previous to deposit rendering? ...

I know it's Monday-morning quarterbacking, but that's another reason why a deposit should always be accompanied by a written contract.

As I said, his position seems to be that you did what lawyers call an "antcipatory breach" of the contract. That would, of course, be up to a judge or jury to decide, if push comes to shove.

You could, it seems to me, meet his deadline by saying "I want to go through with the deal. But I will need until [specific date] to take possession." If you do that, be sure to put it in writing. And of course it's not at all certain that he will be able to sell it to this other person tomorrow. I suspect that he may be saying this in order to pressure you to buy.

So, no, there is no set amount of time because when you gave him the deposit you didn't agree on any such term. But, after-the-fact, both parties to a contract are required to be reasonable. And it may be adjudged unreasonable for him to re-sell it tomorrow.

My issue is that I never backed out and was working on my end to see how I could still get the boat.

I don't want to take ownership until I've completed the required training, and since we didn't concretely define a timeline, is he legally allowed to keep the deposit and sell the boat to someone else when I haven't breached?Hello again, b:

With nothing in writing, who's to say who backed out, and who didn't perform? I know you have an idea in your mind about what performance is. It's just that HE has another idea what it is.. You ask whether he can "legally" keep your deposit, but BECAUSE you have NOTHING in writing, the LEGALITY of your deal cannot be determined.

Were this case to go to court, the judge will be left to decide which one of you acted in the most REASONABLE manner. Requiring you to fulfill your end of the deal isn't unreasonable. When you couldn't, giving you even more time to do it, sounds pretty reasonable to me... Your hesitation to complete the deal, for WHATEVER reasons, sounds unreasonable to me. Your desire to have him hold onto the boat until you complete your additional training, sounds unreasonable to me.

I don't think you have a case. I'd chalk it up to experience, and do your homework next time...

excon

PS> Here's the good news. Unless you put it in the water to find out, it's PROBABLY full of holes.

I agree. I had hoped that he would see my taking it off the market, which cost him nothing, wouldn't justify (ethically) keeping the whole deposit. If I'd jacked around with him or made him miss a sale, then yes, I'd see why he'd take the full deposit. So that, combined with the fact that he refuses to return even half the deposit, but is willing to sell me the boat for $2000 less, leads me to believe that there's a problem with it. Regardless, thank you for your time and help. I appreciate it greatly.

... Your desire to have him hold onto the boat until you complete your additional training, sounds unreasonable to me.
...

I completely agree. OP's insistence on his brand of insurance is not reasonable either. And in any case, he should be able to get some sort of coverage, even from his preferred carrier, with an endorsement that he won't use the boat until training is complete.

You are correct; the insurance is still valid as long as only the named Captain is behind the controls. I'm not to use it until all training is completed. I am going to cease my attempts to get my deposit back and chalk this up as a lesson learned.