| |  Re: Boat Owner Partners- Good, bad, or ugly?
[Re: Chris9]
#91180
12/07/06 09:41 AM 12/07/06 09:41 AM |
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 12,310
South Carolina Jake 
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 12,310
South Carolina | If the trap let go, you're not going to fall into the boom are you?
Ok...so the one remaining person on the boat might...but still. I think it would be fair to assume that in the case of a failure like that that would lead to an additional breakage, the person sailing the boat should take the responsibility for accepting the condition of things like trap lines. If it breaks and results in some other breakage, he/she is responsible for accepting the condition of the trap wire before pushing off the shore for that sail.
I can see how this could all go terribly wrong and that the complications will grow exponentially with the value and/or complication of the boat. However, it can be done with some simple rules put in place.
The worst situation I would think to have to deal with is when the partner agrees he needs to replace something (say the boom) but doesn't take care of it in a timely manner.
Jake Kohl
| | | Re: Boat Owner Partners- Good, bad, or ugly?
[Re: Jake]
#91181
12/07/06 09:59 AM 12/07/06 09:59 AM |
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 887
Crofton, MD Chris9
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 887
Crofton, MD | No, but the crew might. Might get stuck in the mudd, maybe snap the mast, break battens . . . the person sailing the boat should take the responsibility for accepting the condition of things like trap lines. If it breaks and results in some other breakage, he/she is responsible for accepting the condition of the trap wire before pushing off the shore for that sail. I have no problem with that, it is a fine conclusion. As long as "we" agreed to that approach in the past, wrote it down, and adjusted the maintenance philosophy and allowed flexibility in the budget. Cool! Animosity, distrust, blah, blah ...all avoided. | | |  Re: Boat Owner Partners- Good, bad, or ugly?
[Re: Chris9]
#91182
12/07/06 03:15 PM 12/07/06 03:15 PM |
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,459
Annapolis,MD Keith
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,459
Annapolis,MD | Damn, man, you got me so scared I'm going to write up a contract between me and myself!
Ok, skipper and crew are partners, skipper asks crew to do something that crew thinks is stupid, but does it anyway. But screws up doing it. Who pays? The one that was the stupidist?
Ok, now, take the above situation. The mast breaks, and while looking up at the breaking mast the skipper changes course. The boat flips, but does so in front a ferry boat carrying a load of nuns on a site-seeing tour. The ferry boat turns hard to port, crushes a jetski trying to jump its wake and continues on into the fully loaded LNG tanker tied up at the transfer dock. The resulting explosion levels many city blocks. As the fire burns so hot, there is no evidence as to what happened. Blaming it on terrorism, the US invades Latvia as a result. But it turns out that Latvia does have nukes, and the world ends up glowing.
My question is this - does the skipper or crew have to pay for the jetski? And am I entitled to compensation for being stuck in the related traffic jam?
Honestly though, I think the stupidity thing should be called:
The Chris Clause! A bit of a holiday sound to it...
Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled thread... | | | Re: Boat Owner Partners- Good, bad, or ugly?
[Re: Keith]
#91183
12/07/06 03:19 PM 12/07/06 03:19 PM |
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 110
Northern California, USA RyanMcHale
member
|
member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 110
Northern California, USA | Damn, man, you got me so scared I'm going to write up a contract between me and myself!
Ok, skipper and crew are partners, skipper asks crew to do something that crew thinks is stupid, but does it anyway. But screws up doing it. Who pays? The one that was the stupidist?
Ok, now, take the above situation. The mast breaks, and while looking up at the breaking mast the skipper changes course. The boat flips, but does so in front a ferry boat carrying a load of nuns on a site-seeing tour. The ferry boat turns hard to port, crushes a jetski trying to jump its wake and continues on into the fully loaded LNG tanker tied up at the transfer dock. The resulting explosion levels many city blocks. As the fire burns so hot, there is no evidence as to what happened. Blaming it on terrorism, the US invades Latvia as a result. But it turns out that Latvia does have nukes, and the world ends up glowing.
My question is this - does the skipper or crew have to pay for the jetski? And am I entitled to compensation for being stuck in the related traffic jam?
Honestly though, I think the stupidity thing should be called:
The Chris Clause! A bit of a holiday sound to it...
Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled thread... Thanks, I needed a good laugh!!!!!!!
Ryan McHale
Hobie 14 (battened jib)
| | | Re: Boat Owner Partners- Good, bad, or ugly?
[Re: Keith]
#91186
12/08/06 11:41 AM 12/08/06 11:41 AM |
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 887
Crofton, MD Chris9
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 887
Crofton, MD | It only took four of my post, perhaps the last few pushing the ideas a little far, to get you involved. Nice! That is a good start. contract between me and myself! I am restraining myself with the above. Hey, want you book back? Be at the club tomorrow between 9-12, I might even have it with me. | | | Re: Boat Owner Partners- Good, bad, or ugly?
[Re: PTP]
#91187
12/26/06 08:46 AM 12/26/06 08:46 AM |
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,921
Michigan PTP OP
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,921
Michigan |
We can't seem to figure out the best way to deal with financial/use responsibilities during a buy out period but we came up with 3 possible options:
Severance Agreement:
l. If either partner is unhappy with the agreement for whatever reason they may opt to sever the contract.
ii. Ownership rights are surrendered when the difference is entirely paid unless the seller wants to relinquish his rights. In the case werein the seller wants to relinquish rights the buyer assumes all financial responsibility and will pay the seller within the agreed upon year. [color:"red"] [/color] I can think of three options:
1. Pro-buyer: total buy in(financial and decision making) until paid off.
2. The walk away: No financial/decision making responsibility and pay off starts(owner financing scenario)
3. Pro-seller: prorated financial with decision making retained or limited somehow(I can’t imagine a prorated vote when there are only 2 members). [color:"red"] [/color] I don’t have a problem with limited decision making but there would still be rights to use the boat until it is paid in full.
Anyone have any ideas/experience/suggestions?
Last edited by PTP; 12/26/06 08:47 AM.
| | | Re: Boat Owner Partners- Good, bad, or ugly?
[Re: PTP]
#91188
12/26/06 11:03 AM 12/26/06 11:03 AM |
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 195
Straight Outta Hell Boudicca
member
|
member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 195
Straight Outta Hell | Go to the Texas City Dike website www.texascitydike.comAsk if they can find Kevin Grice's contact info for you. Kevin has been in a 3-partner F28R ownership gig for at least 3 years as I recall. All three guys are active sailors. I think at least two of the three also have their own beachcats (well one of them has a Tornado for sure). They seem to have worked it out...
This sig would be something witty, but the censors are against that.
| | |
| |
0 registered members (),
386
guests, and 96
spiders. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums26 Topics22,405 Posts267,056 Members8,150 | | Most Online2,167
Dec 19th, 2022 | | |
