CLAUSES 1-13

The first two pages contain Clauses 1 to 13 in the form of boxes for the relevant details. A format commonly used in the commercial shipping sector. The attention to detail is immediately obvious: assuming “G.R.T.” is meant to mean Gross Register(ed) Tonnage, this is a term which was consigned to history long ago by the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969. Clause 1 refers to "banking days" without reference to a specific location. And it may be wise to not to leave Clause 5 blank in the context of Clause 25 and Clause 38: buyers may not want to pay a pay a deposit to the seller’s statutorily unregulated broker.

CLAUSE 14

While this clause commits seller to the sale process, the seller isn’t prevented from negotiating with other would-be buyers – as long as no commitments are made with any such third party. Having signed the MOA, if the buyer comes under pressure from a broker to improve on the deal – as other would-be buyers are circling – this can be ignored.

CLAUSE 15

While, in law, the term “warranty” has a specific meaning, it appears under this context – confusingly – that it simply means “represents”. This clause is important as the ordinary statutory buyer protection provided by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) is normally removed by Clause 34.

Compared to the sale agreements for trading ships, the list of things which has to be “free and clear of” is a bit simplistic and limited – and should be expanded to include charters, mortgages, writs and port state and other administrative detentions rather than leave scope for argument over what “encumbrance” encompasses in the context of the MOA. The seller needs to ensure that anything of this kind is affecting the vessel: it’s not good enough to expect that the buyer will come across details of these in the public domain. Releasing the vessel from such encumbrance is a prerequisite to the sale completing as set out in Clause 30. Where any such only comes to light after completion, the seller obliged to indemnify the buyer – which is of no use where the seller’s a company the only asset of which was the vessel just sold. Hence the need for a guarantee from a bank or the seller’s beneficial owner.

Under Clause 15, the seller also represents that it(or he/she) is the legal registered owner of the vessel, with title to and the right to sell the vessel – and this will remain the case right up to the point of delivery to the buyer. This is the case anyway under section 12(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) in spite of Clause 34 which only excludes statutory protection “in relation to the VESSEL, fault or errors in her description or her quality or her fitness, for any particular purpose”.

CLAUSE 16

The larger the vessel, the greater the inventory, and the longer it’s going to take to compile or update and check. This should be produced or updated as soon as the vessel is placed on the market, having regard to Clause 21, as the buyer’s surveyor will need to check the items off against it as part of the pre-purchase survey. Once agreed on, the inventory forms part of the sale agreement. Clause 16 is silent as to consequences of rejection of the inventory by the buyer, but it seems likely that the agreement itself will be unaffected – and it’s still open for the buyer to reject under Clause 26. Regarding significant works of art, sculptures, equipment, tenders and toys, it’s helpful to obtain a clear understanding of what’s staying on board (and, as importantly, what's not) before the MOA is signed.

CLAUSE 17

While self-explanatory, this clause makes it clear that making the vessel available for a Clause 26 sea trial and Clause 27 survey is mandatory, not a nice-to-have, and the seller must take care that a charter broker does not arrange for a charter to take place which might prevent this.

CLAUSE 18

While this clause simply sets out that the “Addendum One” documents must be provided by the seller, the MOA doesn’t come with Addendum One – or any addenda for that matter. The documents are so much more than mere paperwork: they are evidence that the vessel complies with certain regulations. Non-compliance may require major works to be carried out. Certain documents will be needed for re-registration and for proving title – without which the vessel may be worth less or even worthless. The sale itself could be invalidated where the correct corporate authorities and powers of attorney aren’t in place. And such documents may need to be authenticated in a particular way(s) in order to be accepted by the vessel’s new or existing flag state.

CLAUSE 19

Unusually for the MOA, this clause is self-explanatory. Keep in mind that “berthing fees and crew’s wages” are implicitly not an exhaustive list.

CLAUSE 20

This clause makes clear that where the seller fails to deliver the vessel (that is, in the legal sense of the word ‘deliver’) per Clause 21 or documentation per Clause 18 then all bets are off and the agreement is cancelled. However, as will be seen with regard to Clause 30, all that’s needed with broad compliance with Addendum One - there’s no mention of the documentation needing to be authenticated as the buyer may require – or even to be effective at all.

CLAUSE 21

The vessel must be delivered in the condition it was in at the time of the Clause 9/Clause 26 sea trial and Clause 9/Clause 27 condition survey, making this a sale of the vessel on an ‘as was’ basis – not ‘as-is’. ‘Delivery’ in this clause means the transfer of physical possession, rather than the vessel being moved. The vessel may have to be delivered elsewhere than at its usual mooring – usually for tax purposes – after which it’ll head straight back to its berth.

While the financial consequences for the buyer of having the vessel delivered in the wrong place could lead to an unexpected Value Added Tax liability of up to 25% of the sale price, it seems that delivering elsewhere than that stated in Clause 11 will only entitle the buyer to claim damages. By contrast, the delivery date is a contractual condition breach of which allows the buyer to cancel the agreement: this is clear from the use of the phrase “time being of the essence” in Clause 12. How this element of Clause 21 is affected by Clause 35 - which deals with force majeure events - isn't clear.

By listing in Clause 21 various specific items which are to be included in the sale, those items not listed are, arguably, excluded. It would have been better simply to state “with everything belonging to the VESSEL on board and on shore” or some such – at least the scope for disagreement would have been reduced.

CLAUSE 22

As risk of loss of, or damage to, the vessel passes under this clause immediately upon delivery, the buyer must make sure that suitable cover has been obtained well in advance.

CLAUSE 23

This may seem like an obvious provision, but keep in mind that where the seller is a company which is in liquidation it may require authorisation to sell the yacht.

CLAUSE 24

The companion to Clause 14 this clause commits the buyer to the sale process. The buyer may only exit from the deal - should the buyer have a change of heart - will be as the agreement allows.

CLAUSE 25

While the “four banking days” clock only begins to tick once the agreement has been signed, as with Clause 1, the term “banking days” isn’t defined in terms of any particular country’s banks. And that’s a problem as a failure to pay is breach of contract, allowing the seller to terminate and sue for damages – which could be an amount equivalent to the unpaid deposit. It’s not the case that the deposit needs to be paid for the agreement to come into effect. It’s also unclear whether the date of signature is included or excluded in the four-day period. Buyers must be aware of, and take into account, the time taken for identity checks and anti-money laundering to be carried out.

CLAUSE 26

One of the many ways in which the drafting of the MOA leaves much to be desired is Clauses 26 and 27 – which between presuppose that the vessel is in the water at the outset. Of course, large yachts can be out of the water for months at a time. No sensible owner would normally place his or her pride and joy on the market while she’s on the hard: often parts of the interior will have been covered-up or removed while works are ongoing, but if the sale is urgent there may be no choice. Where the vessel is out of the water, the necessary amendments will have to be detailed.

Assuming the vessel is in the water when the MOA is agreed, then the seller must make her available for a sea trial of up to four hours. This does not mean that the seller is obliged to make all necessary arrangements. It’s unclear, for example, who would be responsible for ordering pilots if required.

While this clause fails to mention this, the buyer would be well advised to arrange for a surveyor to attend to examine certain aspects of the vessel’s performance which can’t be tested out of the water. How easily the main engine(s) and gensets start, and how much smoke is emitted at various engine temperatures, for example, typically can’t be tested as the engine’s heat exchangers require the vessel to be in the water, and the engines should be tested under load.

Following the sea trial, the buyer may then elect not to go ahead with the purchase – although it’s not clear whether the grounds for this are for any reason (i.e. the saloon cushions are the wrong colour or a similar trivial reason) or whether the reason must relate to the performance of the vessel during the sea trial. To be effective, the buyer must ensure that the rejection is:

1. In writing;

2. To the seller or broker;

3. Within 24 hours of the sea trial; and

4. Submitted as a formal notice in compliance with Clause 43.

CLAUSE 27

It should not be underestimated how difficult it can be to find at short notice a suitably qualified surveyor, appropriately insured, with availability, who the buyer can be reasonably confident will be thorough and independent. It may not be advisable to go along with the seller’s broker’s suggestion. Yard space and facilities may also be a premium – especially out of season. It is also usually be advisable for samples to taken of the engine’s lubricating oil for laboratory analysis. Elemental spectroscopy of the oil can reveal premature engine wear, while the presence of water might indicate a gasket or heat exchanger seal failure. Combined with testing for acidity a picture can be built of the seller’s crew’s approach to equipment maintenance. Differences in results for two identical engines can be an obvious cause for concern. It’s crucial to consider timescales for surveying and testing before dates are set in stone in the MOA.

The object of the survey is only to discover defects which haven’t already been disclosed to the buyer in writing – although the buyer may wish to ascertain the nature and extent of disclosed defects. It’s not clear when the nature and extent of such defects is such that it could be considered that these defects haven’t actually been disclosed.

While a “defect” is determined in Clause 27 to be a defect which “affect(s) the operational integrity of the VESSEL or her machinery or her systems or renders the VESSEL unseaworthy”. There’s no definition of “operational integrity” either in the MOA or in the law generally. Unseaworthiness is also not defined in the MOA. Broadly, as a matter of law, a vessel is unseaworthy when she is not reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas – but this still leaves plenty of scope for factual and legal argument.

Where such an undisclosed defect is found by the surveyor, the buyer must choose one of the option given in (a) paragraph (a), bearing in mind that such notice must be given:

1. In writing;

2. To the seller or broker;

3. Within seven days of the completion of the survey; and

4. In conformity with Clause 43.

If the buyer elects for the seller to carry out remedial works, then it would be wise to set a realistic date for the completion of these, rather than just rely on the “without undue delay” provision.

CLAUSE 28

This clause makes clear that the notice provisions in Clause 26 and Clause 27 must be complied with to the letter – failing which the vessel will have been accepted.

CLAUSE 29

While it is hard to imagine circumstances where the vessel is damaged as a result of the captain complying with a request from the buyer during a sea trial, given the captains duty of care to the seller, it is conceivable that the buyer’s surveyor causes damage. This underlines the importance of checking that the surveyor carries suitable insurance.

CLAUSE 30

Completion (more often known as ‘closing’) is the final stage of the sale and purchase process, during which payment of the balance is made, and the vessel and documents are delivered to the buyer. Subject to any Clause 27 notice or Clause 35 force majeure event, the Clause 12 completion date is the date on which the buyer must pay the balance. There is no mention of this also being the date upon which the seller must receive the funds, but it’s clearly in everyone’s interests for payment to be made as quickly as possible. The currency, bank details and payment method should be agreed in Addendum One and expressly made conditions of the agreement to be strictly adhered with.

Payment is required as soon as the Addendum One documents have been tendered to the buyer – seemingly even if they are defective in terms of their effectiveness or authentication, as long as they comply with their descriptions set out in Addendum One.

CLAUSE 31

This clause elaborates on Clause 25. It’s odd that these two clauses aren’t drafted as a single clause for greater clarity.

CLAUSE 32

This clause elaborates on Clause 23. Again, it’s odd that these two clauses aren’t also drafted as a single clause for greater clarity.

CLAUSE 33

While it used to be considered bad luck to change the name of a yacht, the MOA copies the now standard practice in the shipping industry to change name upon change of ownership. It’s as good to be aware of this clause, given that it is the default position. Given the amount of equipment on board bearing the yacht’s name, logo or monogram, the expense of compliance isn’t to be underestimated. An oil tanker’s name can be changed with a paintbrush: a modern yacht will almost certainly have a custom-made, illuminated name which must be installed and the immediate surrounding area filled and repainted as required. The standard seven days may be no way near long enough. That said, the seller is going to face an uphill task in proving what losses may have followed from any delay in remaining.

CLAUSE 34

In the normal course of events, sections 13, 14 and 15A of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) will apply to the sale and purchase of the vessel. Under these sections, goods sold must corresponded with the seller’s description of them, they must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, etc. But parties are free, subject to certain statutory limitations, to agree to exclude such provisions. And this is what Clause 34 aims to do. It succeeds in this aim, albeit in respect of corporate buyers: individual buyers are ‘consumers’ meaning that these sections cannot be excluded. This clause does not affect the seller’s Clause 15 warranty.

CLAUSE 35

This clause sets out what the parties are to do where certain external events beyond their control delay the sea trial, survey or closing. As the law aims to ensure that the parties carry through with the deal, force majeure clauses are interpreted restrictively and against the party seeking to rely on them. And even then, that party must then prove that it used reasonable endeavours to minimise the delay.

CLAUSE 36

This is a standard so-called boilerplate clause, which are normally placed after all the commercial terms. But MYBA, it seems, likes to do things differently.

CLAUSE 37

Though detailed, Clause 37 is self-explanatory and requires no further explanation.

CLAUSE 38

While Clause 5 presupposes that the stakeholder will be a broker, the seller should think long and hard about whether it’s wise to place money at the disposal of a statutorily unregulated party which is acting for the buyer. It is increasingly common for funds to be placed with the buyer’s lawyer – which also alleviates the broker from the increasing bureaucracy associated with satisfying anti-money laundering rules. Even then, the choice of lawyer is important.

CLAUSE 39

This otherwise self-explanatory clause only applies where the parties agree that the bottom should be painted with antifouling and anodes replaced. Notably, it makes no mention of more modern and environmentally-friendly antifouling wraps. Where there is significant fouling but the sacrificial anodes do not require replacing, there could be a cathodic grounding fault which the surveyor should investigate. The anodes are implicitly those on the hull, shafts and rudders – rather than those within the raw-water side of the engines’ cooling systems.

CLAUSE 40

Arbitration is a way of setline disputes in private, which is no less effective than going through the public courts potentially in the media spotlight. Missing from the MOA is a specific reference to the arbitration being conducted in accordance with the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) terms – which allow for different levels of procedural complexity according to the amount in issue.

CLAUSE 41–44

These are standard boilerplate clauses, but the reference to the “telefax” is now obviously very outdated and needs amending.