On 16 May 2025, a judgment of the Hague District Court was published in a dispute concerning a pre-purchase survey of a yacht carried out by an expert (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:8301).
Facts presented
The clients commissioned an expert to carry out a pre-purchase survey of a yacht built in 2007. In his report, the expert states that the overall condition and state of maintenance are good. The clients paid more than €1,600 for the survey. After receiving the survey report, the clients purchased the yacht for €262,500.
Shortly after the purchase, the clients discovered that water was leaking into the yacht through the aluminium window frames. The expert stated that although there was a serious problem with the yacht, he did not consider himself liable for it. A counter-expertise carried out on behalf of the clients, in which the expert was not present, revealed corrosion of the steelwork around the windows, moisture damage to the panelling and mould behind the panelling, all as a result of condensation and water in the bilge. There were also no declarations regarding the CE certification of the yacht.
Pursuant to a valuation carried out on behalf of the clients, the yacht was valued at a market value of €165,000. The clients summoned the seller of the yacht to court. Those proceedings ended in a settlement under which the clients received €60,000 from the seller. The clients ultimately sold the yacht to a third party for more than €195,000.
The clients argue that the expert did not perform the pre-purchase survey properly and are claiming the dissolution of their agreement with the expert as well as compensation for the damage they suffered, estimated at more than €25,000. The expert argues that he performed the pre-purchase survey properly and therefore disputes that he is liable. He also disputes the amount of damages claimed.
Court considerations
The court considers that the parties agreed on a non-destructive survey, that the survey would be limited to those parts of the yacht that were easily accessible, and that the expert would take random measurements. The court considers that the pre-purchase survey was a general survey and not an in-depth inspection of all parts of the yacht, as confirmed by the limited price charged for the survey.
With regard to the presence of the CE-registration, the court considers that the expert failed to exercise the care that could be expected of an expert. In the context of checking the yacht’s CE-certification, the expert could not rely solely on the information provided by the sales agent. The expert should have checked the accuracy of that information and could not suffice in his survey report with the mere statement that the accuracy of that information could not be guaranteed. Nor does the mere fact that the agreement excluded the inspection of CE-conformity mean that the clients should have understood that the expert would not check whether the CE-certification essential for the sale or purchase of the boat was present. This is all the more true because the expert stated in the report that the CE-registration was present.
With regard to condensation and the presence of water in the bilge, the court considers that the expert should have checked the yacht for this, but concludes that the clients have insufficiently substantiated that condensation was visible during the survey. The expert had submitted a statement from the sales agent in which he stated that there were no clearly visible traces of moisture under the windows during the survey and that the interior panelling around the windows was in visibly good condition. The clients, on the other hand, relied solely on photographs taken afterwards and the subsequent counter-expertise, which, due to an endoscopy and the relocation of a washing machine, had a broader scope than the survey to which the expert had committed himself.
The court therefore concluded that the expert had only failed to check for the presence of a CE-registration. The expert was also in default, not only because a pre-purchase survey, by its nature, can only be remedied up to the time of purchase, but also because the expert did not take responsibility for the alleged problems with the yacht. The court therefore partially dissolved the agreement between the clients and the expert.
As a result of this dissolution, the court determined the actual value of the work performed by the expert to be 50% of the invoice amount and orders the expert to repay the other 50%. The court also awarded the claimed compensation for the costs of obtaining CE-certification, but rejected the costs for the valuation report and for repairing defects found during the purchase survey carried out by a subsequent buyer. In total, the court awarded just over €5,000.
Lessons learned
This case shows that the mere failure to discover a defect during a pre-purchase survey does not make the expert liable towards the client. The wording of the contract can fill in the standard of a reasonably competent and reasonably acting professional. Nevertheless, in this case, the expert must reimburse the clients an amount that far exceeds the amount he charged them. In a similar situation, an expert apparently fared better after a non-destructive and random purchase survey (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2024:1747). We have discussed that ruling previously (see here).
We have extensive experience in assisting with yacht pre-purchase surveys from a legal perspective and in litigating yacht defects on behalf of yards and buyers. If you have questions about an expert’s findings or need an analysis of your dispute, please feel free to contact us.
