On 16 April 2025, the Rotterdam District Court issued a judgment in a dispute concerning payment for additional work on scuppers of a superyacht (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:4698).
Presented facts
A builder of hulls of luxury yachts engaged a pipe installer on several occasions to install so-called “scuppers” in the hulls. Scuppers are gutters for draining water that ends up on the yacht’s deck.
In 2017, the installer was commissioned by the hull builder to install scuppers on a hull built for yacht builder Hakvoort for a 61-metre-long yacht. The total price for that work, including materials, amounted to more than €28,000 on a cost-plus basis. In 2020, the installer carried out scupper work on a similar hull for a fixed contract price of more than €28,000.
In 2023, at the request of the hull builder, the installer provided a quotation for installing the scupper work on a third hull. The parties ultimately agreed on a fixed contract price of more than €48,000. The parties then corresponded frequently about the higher costs that, according to the installer, were involved in the scupper work.
The hull builder remitted the fixed contract price to the installer on time, but did not pay the invoices for the additional work. The installer claims payment of those invoices. It believes that the fixed price it quoted was based on the hull builder’s statement, which in hindsight was incorrect, that the new hull would be virtually identical to the two previous hulls, apart from its length. In reality, the work was more complex, partly because more piping and more bends had to be installed and welding had to be carried out in hard-to-reach places using mirrors and special equipment. In addition, the hull builder allegedly did not share the working drawings it had with the installer prior to concluding the agreement for the third hull.
The hull builder disputes that it made incorrect statements or provided insufficient information to the installer. It shared the drawings it had at its disposal prior to entering into the agreement. It further states that it offered the installer payment on a cost-plus basis, precisely to avoid the installer running a financial risk if the work turned out to be more difficult than expected, but the installer nevertheless opted for a fixed contract price. Under those circumstances, the hull builder argues, any setbacks during the execution of the work are at the risk and expense of the installer.
Court considerations
The court considers that the installer insufficiently substantiated that the hull builder failed to provide drawings that it had in its possession in a timely manner. Whereas the installer took varying positions on what drawings the hull builder would have available and when, the hull builder consistently substantiated its defence on this point.
The installer’s assertion that the price was based on the hull builder’s statement that the work for this third hull would be virtually identical to the work for the previous hulls, is also unfounded. The court considers that, despite having suffered losses on the two previous projects, the installer agreed on a fixed price for the third project before the scope and content of the work were clear. The hull builder also stated that each hull is unique and that the installer, because it had access to the shipyard, could independently form an opinion on the similarities between the new hull and the two previous projects. However, even if the hull builder had made a commitment regarding those similarities, the installer could not reasonably assume that the new project would not turn out to be different or more expensive than the previous work, partly in view of the hull builder’s offer to work on a cost-plus basis.
The court therefore rejected the installer’s claim.
Lessons learned
This case shows that there are risks associated with contracting on a fixed-price basis if not all parameters are clear in advance, especially if the contract does not contain a provision dealing with uncertainties. If the installer had contracted on a cost-plus basis, it would probably have been able to limit the financial risks.
We have extensive experience in drafting construction agreements and subcontracts relating to yachts and in litigating such agreements on behalf of clients and contractors. If you have any questions about the content of such agreements, please do not hesitate to contact us.
