On 19 August 2025, a judgment of the Amsterdam District Court was published in a dispute concerning the delivery of a yacht (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5758).
Facts presented
At the beginning of July 2023, a consumer buyer – or a person to be nominated – and yacht broker Lenger Yachts entered into an agreement for the purchase of a yacht, with the broker acting as the seller’s representative. The purchase agreement stipulates that delivery must take place no later than 1 March 2024. It was also agreed that the purchase price would be paid in four instalments, with the third instalment being paid through a trade-in of the buyer’s current yacht.
After the buyer had transferred the first and second instalments to the broker, the physical trade-in of the other yacht took place. From that moment on, the buyer was allowed to use the yacht on the basis of a usage agreement. However, the legal delivery of the yacht and the trade-in yacht still had to take place.
In March 2024, the buyer nominated his spouse – the claimant – in writing as the ultimate buyer of the yacht. The claimant then made the fourth instalment payment to the broker. However, the transfer of the yacht did not take place, apparently because there was still a mortgage on the yacht. The claimant ultimately summoned the broker in October 2024 to have the mortgage right removed and to deliver the yacht. Despite the fact that the claimant and the broker subsequently discussed a plan for the simultaneous delivery of the yacht and the trade-in yacht at length, that delivery had still not taken place in April 2025.
The claimant is seeking an injunction to order the broker to effect the legal delivery of the yacht, on pain of a penalty of €100,000 per day, up to a maximum of €1,500,000. The broker acknowledges that ownership of the yacht has yet to be transferred but claims to be dependent on third parties, including the buyer himself, who must transfer the trade-in yacht to the broker. The broker also argues that it is unclear whether the claimant has been designated as the ultimate buyer of the yacht, because the buyer has (also) designated a Maltese entity as the buyer and because the claimant has approved the delivery documents in which this entity is mentioned. The broker also disputes the claimant’s urgent interest, as she already has possession of the yacht.
Court considerations
The court first considers that the claim in summary proceedings can only be granted if it is sufficiently plausible that the court hearing the main action will follow the claimant’s position and that the claimant cannot be expected to await the outcome of the main proceedings.
With regard to the latter, the court considers that the claimant has a sufficiently urgent interest in bringing an end to the uncertainty regarding the cancellation of the mortgage right in the short term.
With regard to the substance of the claim, the court considers that it is sufficiently plausible that the obligation to pay the purchase price has been fulfilled. The fact that, with regard to the trade-in yacht – which is already in the possession of the broker – some further steps still need to be taken before the legal transfer of ownership can take place does not alter this. The same applies to the alleged uncertainty about the ultimate buyer of the yacht. In this regard, the court notes that, after taking note of the claimant’s designation as the buyer and the claimant’s explanation thereof, the broker did not raise any further issues regarding that designation until the summary proceedings. According to the court, it is clear that the buyer designated the claimant as the buyer and also that the yacht will ultimately become the property of the Maltese entity that is affiliated with the claimant. There is no evidence whatsoever that the broker could expect claims from the buyer or the Maltese entity after a transfer of the yacht to the claimant. The facts of the case suggest that the broker is deliberately delaying the legal transfer of the yacht, according to the court.
The court therefore grants the claim for the legal transfer of the yacht to be effected, on pain of a penalty of €10,000 per day, up to a maximum of €1,000,000.
Lessons learned
This case demonstrates that summary proceedings can be an effective mechanism, even though not every claim is suitable for such proceedings. In this case, the summary proceedings led to a judgment within a few weeks. In addition, a penalty provides an extra incentive to comply. Penalties imposed on the basis of a summary judgment are, in principle, not affected by a different decision on the dispute in proceedings on the merits. It is not known whether such proceedings have been initiated in this case. It is not uncommon for a summary judgment to lead to a comprehensive resolution of the dispute.
We have extensive experience in drafting and advising on contracts for the construction and sale of yachts and in disputes relating to such contracts. If you have any questions about the content of such contracts or if you need an analysis of your dispute, please feel free to contact us.
