For the record.
The 42 foot traders are built in China and not associated with the other larger traders built in Taiwan. I think the idea was to carry on with just the Chines boats because the agency for the other ones was lost.
Results 51 to 60 of 71
07-01-11, 23:59 #51Registered User
Location : Brecon, Wales
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
St Francis 50 Cat
08-01-11, 00:42 #52Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
It is not a question of reading from any single perspective, just a question of reading the facts.
Your statement that "technically debatable but for the purposes of this forum in layman's terms it is accurate enough" is just arrant nonsense. Do you mean to say that people here are not capable of seeing what is true and what is not? That seems to be your whole problem - you do not seem to understand the subject yourself but rely on constantly stating your own opinion in the hope that people will believe it.
Do you have any evidence money was actually taken from th client account by the bank? If you are unclear about this issue you need to take it up with the administrators as they and the court said that all legal claims on the client account were met.
The failure of some people to reclaim their deposits was NOT because the account was not formatted correctly. It was because certain deposits were not paid into the account as was promised. This is absolutely crystal clear from the case - which was heard to determine whether the claims from those unfortunate people were legal. I am amazed that you have not grasped this yet, given that you have the same copy of the report and commentary as I have.
I know that is not what you want to hear but that is the fact.
There is absolutely no point in you continuing to make the same misguided statements, particularly when this thread was nothing about client accounts, but about unsecured stage payments.
You have made a statement in your last paragraph (which paraphrases what you have said a number of times) without any evidence. It is only your opinion until you produce a documented case to support it. Until then suggest you refrain from making untrue statements.
Last edited by Tranona; 08-01-11 at 00:46.
08-01-11, 12:33 #53
Every payment to the builder is lodged against the boat and recorded as paid at the Dutch shipping registry so that irrespective of whatever happens to a builder or how they use the money, the boat and equipment bought for it, whether installed or not, is always the property of the customer from the moment the keel is laid to the moment he takes delivery of the vessel.
At their request, I have sent these contracts to the RYA and the BMF when all this surfaced the last time.....sadly I have to admit that neither outfit did anything with them.
This is a shame because they are so much better for the customer and I suspect even DAKA would be happy with the terms!
08-01-11, 14:50 #54
To quote the headnote from the official case report:
"The money paid by the company into its overdrawn current account never formed part of the money in the client account, which was the fund against which the appellants sought to claim. Instead, when the money in the current account was used to reduce the company's liability with the bank it effectively disappeared and there was never any fund on which a proprietary claim could operate...
Furthermore, although the appellants apparently had a good claim against the company for breach of trust for not having paid the money into the client account, that did not mean that they had a proprietary or any other equitable interest or right over that account, since that would mean creating, to the detriment of all the other unsecured creditors, a new class of preferred creditors of those whose money was taken by the company in breach of trust, which ranked behind all secured or trust or proprietary claims but before any ordinary unsecured claims."
08-01-11, 15:40 #55
I'm not at all convinced that finishing off the 7 boats on order on the same terms is the big altruistic gesture its being made out to be. The 7 buyers would all have made stage payments, so they'd all own a chunk of GRP/ancilliaries that needed finishing. The manufacturer would have seven part-finished boats he couldn't sell, so of course the newco is going to arrange completion of the boats, because all parties want them to, and they can do so at a profit. To do otherwise would be like buying a company selling widgets, and rejecting all the existing orders for products.
There's nothing wrong with this of course, any buyer of Tarquin's assets would have done the same, but it has been painted in MBY as some saintly act. They state the potential losses are been covered by the newco's reserves and profits, but it's a new company, so it doesn't have either of those yet. It may be that he has resisted the temptation to try and screw extra payments out of the buyers to bump up profits, and if so that's a pat on the back, but it's very different from covering losses himself.
Now none of this indicates either way whether Toby Chappell is like his dad, and i'm not naive, but has anyone considered that he could be genuine? Has anyone here ever met him? The Trader buyers, who are obviously astute enough to build up the funds to buy large yachts, and would presumably have complete distrust of his father, seem to think he's a straight up chap, in fact two of them were so certain about it that they can now entertain dinner guests with their Victor Kiam impressions. There's just a chance that he's delighted to see the back of his crooked father from the business, so that he can now finally try and run a legit business making the boats he has designed?? Stranger things have happened.
08-01-11, 18:21 #56Registered User
Location : Brecon, Wales
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
Tony Chappel's son is the one I dealt with most of the time in the build of my boat and I am sure his father kept no secrets from him.
I should have realised what the company was like when the son complained to me that unfortunately no Traders had been damaged in the recent Caribbean hurricane and hence sadly there were no big parts to replace at a handsome profit.
I cannot say what the son is like in the new business - all I know is that from my experience I would never deal with any of them ever again. :-)Paul
St Francis 50 Cat
08-01-11, 21:15 #57
Where money is paid into a bank account, which then
becomes overdrawn, the fund ceases to exist. Equitable tracing therefore
cannot be pursued through an overdrawn account, and the beneficiary
cannot claim a proprietary interest in other assets belonging to the trustee
in priority to other unsecured creditors on the ground that his assets had
been misappropriated in breach of trust: see Bishopgate Investment
Limited -v- Homan  Ch.211 per Dillon L.J. 216d-f and 218e – 220-h
In a nut shell we are left with differing opinions on the protection of bodged up Yacht Brokers clients account.
There is very clear case history as I have shown numerous times that says that once money leaves a trust it cant be replaced.
Yacht Brokers (some definitively and possibly most) set up automatic transfers from the clients account to use against their over drafts, that effectively removes the funds from the trust, although I am pleased to agree with you that the administrators didnt pursuit this in the BA Peters case but it doesnt follow that will happen in the future and next time all the clients funds can vanish .
Anyone who hands money to a Yacht Broker/Builder needs to be aware that the money is at risk and should be first checking the Client account is correctly formatted or utilize an escrow account.
Its even more pointless arguing during this thread as I am sure the Chapples had no intention of ever protecting their marks cash.
I hope you dont object to the term Mark on this thread although I could be wrong, we will see once the full details of the current cases are published..
10-01-11, 10:20 #58
The arguments between Tranona and myself are crazy, if interest rates were 10-15% I could understand the reluctance of Brokers to relinquish their perceived free access to cash but the current interest rates make the money more of a nuisance to reputable brokers like your good self.
The only Yacht Brokers who are likely to benefit from the current low protection are the dodgy ones, it cant be in anyones interest to protect them other than the Yacht Brokers associations in the interests of maintaining membership incomes, thats a bit short sighted to say the least.
10-01-11, 10:34 #59
For years I have been posting about how the current situation allows for a Yacht Broker to use the clients funds for day to day business expenses.
It isnt illegal as long as the Yacht Broker says he intends to pay the cash back after he has borrowed it.
We will see what happens to chapple but as long as he maintains he only meant to borrow the cash then he hasnt really broken any laws.
If you read up on the BA Peters case notes you will notice that they were using the clients account to balance the overdrawn working business account.
Although Barclays stopped this just before the bubble burst, thus it is easy to loose focus on that huge great big hole in the so called clients account.
I would like to point out that my arguments are NOT IN ANYWAY against reputable Yacht Brokers.
Lets not forget that BA Peters attempted to pay some money into a clients account in order to protect it however the protection was useless.
My argument is with the various associations who are supposed to recommend to their clients how best to look after their clients funds but either are too stupid to recognise the dangers or prefer to turn a blind eye as they dont want to exclude the not so reputable yacht Brokers from lucrative membership incomes..
10-01-11, 11:03 #60My argument is with the various associations who are supposed to recommend to their clients how best to look after their clients funds but either are too stupid to recognise the dangers or prefer to turn a blind eye as they dont want to exclude the not so reputable yacht Brokers from lucrative membership incomes.