Nordhavn delivery and commissioning issues

Yes, I find the end of the company aspect a bit difficult to believe. Nordhavn had the financial strength to survive the recession and while I'm sure they would have had a struggle absorbing the loss, I don't see a reversal of the sale killing them, just leaving them with a very expensive boat to unload and the fact it did resell rather quickly says they could have unloaded it with a sizable but not insurmountable loss. The reminding one of Grand Ambition is also quite a stretch.

On the other hand it was extremely sloppy paperwork by Nordhavn and you would have thought with their experience they wouldn't have done so.

Deciding between a WP 112 and an Nord 120 seems like the strangest thing to me as well since the two boats have virtually no similarity other than length.

Hard to believe having to take the yacht back would have killed the company, unless every penny they were making on the sale went to pay back bills.
They had a previous relationship owner and the risk of structuring the deal that way in CA. The fact he was off the yacht before it reached port and their refusal to say who the actual owner really was seems...fishy. Maybe the value of the 86' was inflated to bring down the 120' on paper and how to talk him out of a WP 112'?

Avoiding using lawyers in the beginning more often results in them costing much much more at the end. Either way, never fun to have this kind of mess over a "toy" that should just be for enjoyment outside of work/courtroom.

I was interested to see that my dispute with PAE was listed in the response by PAE. I am the 'Becket' and it says that my dispute with them was 'settled by Agreement'. The name is actually Beckett and I started down the long path to buy a Nordhavn with them (hull 8606), the process was anything but smooth with additional costs arising at every turn. This was my first new boat construction and I did not get the right advice from the outset (my bad). I cancelled the project long before it got anywhere near production and they had no costs but sued me to retain the $1.6m deposit. I found them incredibly aggressive and their default response seemed to be to send a 'legal' letter. I think it is interesting to reflect on this legal case that this Customer had previously bought 3 Nordhavns. The 120 foot was his fourth and it was them that sued him (he defended and coutersued), they sued him for approximate 5% of the value of the transaction. I would say that was entirely consistent with my experience of them!

Im curious to know the full case name and case number (presumably in the Orange County Superior Court) so that we can all see the pleadings and evaluate the facts for ourselves. After all, there are always two sides to every story.

I welcome any enqiries regarding the N120 and the litigation that followed, I will respond to enquiries off line at Mod Edit: email address removed Very interested in other that had a similar experience. Once a significant deposit has been made, there is little or no options other than walk away or increase your risk of a total loss.

These links might provide some better detail and background.

https://nordhavnfacts.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordhavn_(yacht

This article provides further background.

https://nordhavnfacts.com/wp-conten...hat-Permeates-the-Yacht-Building-Industry.pdf

Well isn't this an interesting read...

Also think you should have just boughten a Westport.

While reading his own story makes it sound very convincing, let's keep in mind that we didn't hear both sides and that the only neutral party that did was the court and they ruled in Nordhavn's favor.

Clearly Nordhavn didn't and never could have and no reasonable man would have had the expectation that they could meet all the terms of the contract. They don't build Westport's, don't work like Westport, can't do what Westport does. Furthermore this was a new model which makes the contract even less reasonable.

Clearly Nordhavn was desperate at that time. However, the buyer had unreasonable expectations of performance and build and timing as well as unreasonable expectations of their assistance in avoiding taxes.

I am not a fan of Nordhavn. I think their lengthy commissioning process is absurd and on this boat they had to do things before shipment they aren't use to doing. However, I still accept them as a decent company with many happy customers and I have several friends who have owned previous Nordhavn's, two of whom have new ones being built. In my opinion, they're still a good company to deal with as long as you go in knowing their process and how they work. I wouldn't expect them to work like Westport, but then there are many excellent boat builders that don't.

The documents posted do reflect poorly on Nordhavn. However, the crusade that Mr. Conconi launched and continues to pursue to make Nordhavn look bad reflects more poorly on him. I've read all available documents and while they would prevent me from ordering a 140' Nordhavn they've never built (now that they've built a 120) and expecting Westport type service, they would not prevent me from dealing with Nordhavn on existing models. Both sides look bad. However, the available documents and this continuing crusade absolutely would make me never consider doing business with Mr. Conconi. Just one man's opinion, but I'm never impressed by those who now have no purpose in their continuing war except to try to make someone else look bad.

But it's just like a Xerox. lol

I was more thinking of that old commercial where they smack their head and say "I should have had a V8 (juice)"

I was thinking the same thing, the court decided in a different way than what these documents presented by one side would suggest. But also reading through it all I wouldn't be interested in doing business with either. Not that I think either is bad, but they probably deserve each other. Bob should have just ordered a Westport if that was his expectation, hell he lives across the border from them. He enter into an agreement with Nordhavn with whom he had clearly had a strained relationship in the past, and some of that could very well be chalked up to bad luck. But I think he saw or felt they were over a barrel and he could get 120' at a deal. He never engaged a captain or build project manager that I see and never had an issue with and proudly was going to run the ship as a husband and wife team out of his boathouse. That as published and seemed odd. He also isn't a first time yacht owner so how he traveled across the ocean on the 120' yet didn't seem to want to engage in learning any of the systems seems odd. The hot footing it off the yacht before it ever got near Canadian waters and not waiting for it at the dock with pride as the tax authority shows up...seems...well time. Though I see no reason with structuring things to pay less taxes, we all do that...but when pinched don't act like that isn't what was going on.

On the flip side PAE seems like they were in a tough spot and real financial squeeze. Which is kind of hard to understand since every real capital thing is overseas. 10 years ago was a different time though, so managing even a small office could have been tough and tougher when you have 3 or 4 partners. This very much feels like a case where they "got ahead of their skis" and were so happy to have a new customer take the place of their dream customer who backed out of the first contract. Biggest boat by far they had ever built, their order book drying up, all kinds of promises must have been made. But I don't see how the owner could ride across the ocean and then start complaining about quality of the build. Not like these 2 have never done business before.

Really is an interesting read and the most recent information is from one side. BUT it has been through the courts that have seem more of the evidence than we may ever see to pass judgment.

I wish there was a better forum to share what actually happened, I left the vessel after 12 weeks into a delivery schedule that was scheduled for only 6 weeks. The vessel had not been accepted or delivered and was in an incomplete state, it was operative but not complete. On arrival, PAE's statements ended in the seizure of the vessel and PAE left on the first plane out, the vessel then started to sink, a major flaw resulted in sending the vessel to Seattle for repairs (4 months duration), during that time nothing further was done to complete the build. Experts were engaged to do reports of the status on Aurora's return from Seattle and illustrate what the purchaser was required to complete without assistance or contribution by PAE. In hindsight, I am glad to have received the product of my investment as it could have been still sitting in China partially constructed.

This link gives some further background on the story. There was never an isssue of collection of funds but rather an action attemptoing to have PAE complete their obligations. Please review thee detail and contract provisions.
https://nordhavnfacts.com/

Bob, I've read every word, I've reviewed every document I could find. You're continuing your crusade all this many years later. You post everywhere you can and link to your website. You've linked to your site in this thread in posts #23, #24, and #29. Is it really necessary to do so three times? You're, of course, overlooking your tax scheme in your posts. PAE refused to assist you on that.

PAE looks bad. Their testimony is almost comical. I love the parts in referring to sections of the contract where they freely admit to not paying attention to them. It's also comical reading how many times Westport is referenced. I'm sure they're quite happy Nordhavn made the sale though, and not them.

As to nothing done to complete the build, you hadn't made the final payment and whether you feel justified or not, that's not likely to lead to them doing more work. There was clearly an issue of collection of funds. We'll never know what they otherwise would have or wouldn't have done under warranty. As it happened, they chose to wash their hands of all dealings with you and just see you in court, where, once again a reminder, they won.

You asked Nordhavn to do something they couldn't, outside their norm. They don't deliver "complete" boats, but have extensive commissioning done after delivery.

I don't understand your point in continuing this as you're not winning. Nordhavn fans still are Nordhavn fans. It's like convincing people to change their politics, not going to happen. All you're doing is making yourself look bad.

You almost have it correct.

Please look at the schedule of payments and the purpose for the holdback and conditions of its release. I could have easily paid the balance into court but PAE lacked the ability to complete Aurora with the funds that remained to be paid. To summarize, the cost to complete Aurora exceeded the unpaid balance, PAE was overpaid for the vessel during the build period and it was incomplete, many items not even installed or operative. PAE lacked the capital to finish the build, simple and honest. There was no profit to be made if and when Aurora was accepted as complete.

Any vessel is not the purchaser's property during construction in China, at best it is the property of PAE. PAE requires the cooperation of the factory to release any vessel under construction.

I know I am not the only party that was faced with the same reality and happy to simply receive their vessel.

I love the Nordhavn the brand, the vessels. I have met hundreds of Nordhavn owners and have never spoken in a negative manner of the Nordhavn product.

I don't have a problem with facts or payment of my obligations or honesty. I wish I could say the same about the principals of PAE and their business practices.

Well, I have a problem with them and a bigger one with you and just thankful not to be involved in such an insane situation. There was no chance from the outset of them every meeting your expectations. It's like going into Burger King and ordering a steak and telling them it must be cooked just like Ruth's Chris, paying them $9.99. When they bring the steak to the counter, you're going to be disappointed if you honestly expected it to be like Ruth's Chris.

Read the information, it has nothing to do with being unreasonable with a finished vessel. Aurora was a partially built product, a vessel not a single person in the world would call complete or acceptable.

You're a broken record and I'm through. I read every word, more than once. I've formed my opinion. Have fun with your obsession.

Sorry for delayed reply. To my knowledge the case didnt go to Court, they sued me and I didnt defend myself. This was my first attempt at trying to build a boat, I was completely intimidated by them. I paid a deposit of US$1.6m and in good faith tried to specify the boat with them (8606) but cancelled the project when the costs kept rising and the production start date kept slipping. The person who was supposed to be our Project Manager (Trevor) was never freed up to concentrate on our boat because he was forever 'fire fighting' production issues on other boats. There was definitely some fault on my side because I did not understand their process well enough before entering into the contract. I wanted a boat but did not understand all of the complexity and my Captain also became overwhelmed with the myriad of 'additions' until he recommended that we must walk away. During the Sales Cycle you only deal with the USA. Remember that when you move past the Sales cycle you are having to deal with people both in the USA and in their factory in Asia and it is not made easy. (Maybe they have improved it in the last few years, at the time it was all poorly executed, at 8606 I was fairly early in their process to build an 86). From my perspective and I admit that I am a single female (that shouldnt have caused me issues with them but it did as I never achieved the correct level of respect) I just wanted a boat and their production schedules kept slipping and the boat became more and more expensive whilst the delivery date slipped further and further into the future. Their contract offers little or no protection for delays from their side. When I decided to cancel the project I had every expectation of settling with a return of part of the deposit less their actual costs or putting the deposit toward a finished boat even if it was a 'used' boat. I just wanted a boat! They then sued me to keep the full deposit without providing anything, threatening all sort of additional charges such as loss of profit on the overall deal. They sued me in the USA and I was a UK citizen living in the UK. At the time I was very busy professionally and I walked away from the situation badly bruised. Does that constitute an 'Agreement?' I didnt go to the USA to fight the case against them...... I am now looking at boats again and reading up on all and just saw my name being referenced. I would say that my experience of this Company was completely different from the 'friendly, supportive' Marketing image that they project. I found them to be greedy, aggressive and although I dont know Bob Conconi and dont know his full story the way that he was treated by being sued for the final 5% of contract when there had clearly been issues, is just entirely consistent with the overly aggressive way that they treated me. Seemingly from Bob's case they are still justifying their aggression by suggesting that they operate so close to the wire that they need to act in this way. Worrying at many levels if it is true but I suspect that it isnt.... whether true or not their future customers need to be aware that they will seek every opportunity to make money from you and aggressively squeeze every cent from you with their long running 'defence' that the viability of their Company (and jobs yada yada) are threatened if they do not. They will say that they 'regret' their aggressive stance (yes they actually said that to me) they must do (whatever it is that they are threatening you with). I have no boat to sell, nothing to gain from explaining what happened to me, I dont think I have any interest in revenge, but I do object to their misrepresentaiton that their retention of US$1.6m of my money was in any way the subject of a 'Compromise Agreement'. They produced nothing beyond production schedules that saw the boat start date slipping by 2 years and bullied me in a shameful way.

Beckett. I find your situation very different than Conconi's.

I would say having a boat built could be overwhelming the first time, especially with someone like Nordhavn. Whether they were morally justified in keeping your entire deposit or not, they may have been legally. I don't know the total price of your boat, but $1.6 million sounds like an extremely high deposit. Depending on when your situation was, they very well might have been operating very tightly and using one deposit to finish a previous boat and turned to a tough legal stance both out of some sense of entitlement and out of necessity as not having those funds readily available.

Having not seen your contract, I can't really judge their legal standing nor help you in any way. I can only offer advice for others in the future based on your situation and others.

1. I don't know if you did or not, but never enter into such a contract without it being reviewed by an attorney experienced in boat building and in multiple jurisdiction law. They write the contracts to their benefit. They clearly do not protect you against their non performance, especially timeliness. They and many other builders do a bad job of meeting schedules. Also, they choose the jurisdiction and the legal entity you're dealing with and definitely for their convenience.

2. Payments should never be substantially ahead of work performed. In my opinion, a down payment of 10% until they actually start work on the boat is reasonable. Then progress payments should only occur based on a reasonable correlation with actual progress on your boat. This protects against using your money to finish others in what I refer to as "Boat Builder's Ponzi Scheme."

3. Have your own representative, experienced in building boats, regularly on their site. If China is too far or expensive to do such, then it's too far or expensive to build a boat. I've done a lot of contracting throughout the world and always found a key is having my person on site.

4. Have everything spelled out in the contract so costs can't escalate during the process. There should be a detailed specification sheet with even the smallest items detailed as change orders can be nightmarish.

5. This may actually be the most important. Have a thorough understanding of the specific builder's process and history and financial situation. This can be difficult as many builders have a huge group of happy customers who become propogandists for them and I'd say Nordhavn fits that description. Cutting through that to get to reasonable expectations is difficult. However, two statements I could make about Nordhavn without hesitation are 1-They consistently do not meet schedules, and 2-It may well take months or even a year to get all the issues resolved after delivery. They do not delivery a complete, issue free boat, and their regular customers have accepted a long commissioning and de-bugging.

6. Be prepared mentally and financially for both the likely and the worst.

Unfortunately, your experience is not all that unusual although that still doesn't make it right. I know of builders who are far worse. Nordhavn's percentage of happy customers is probably equal to the industry norm on a custom or semi-custom boat. I don't know if yours was a new model or not but sounds like it may have been which greatly worsens things.

I personally could never tolerate "The Nordhavn Way" of doing things. I'd have to assign the project completely to someone else to manage and pretend it didn't even exist and I'm probably not capable of that. I deal on schedule and problem free and expect others to do the same. There are many builders I could never deal with even if it meant not getting the boat I wanted. I lack the tolerance. However, Nordhavn has many happy customers who clearly are more tolerant than me.

I've also stuck to production boats and to semi-custom. I have purchased Riva boats but they were in inventory and surveyed prior to taking ownership. I ordered a Sunseeker and it was production and had no issues and was actually ahead of schedule. I've build at Westport and they are semi-custom but very much production line in nature and do everything on schedule and deliver a boat that is completely ready to go.

I'm sorry things went for you as they did. Whether you could have recovered anything or not, I don't know, but likely would have come at great time and cost. Unfortunately, I would say to others as well to let this serve as a warning that whatever you make as a deposit, you can lose completely. It can happen through bankruptcy, non performance and other ways. You've just paid money and received nothing tangible in return, just a promise. I would suggest insurance on the boat throughout the build and every dollar you've paid and that includes either a performance bond or some form of insurance on your deposit unless you have 100% confidence in who you're giving the money to. In many situations, you're not even dealing with a builder and your contract is simply with a sales entity that has no assets if you were to successfully sue. I've seen months on months of court time taken arguing if the right party has been sued and right jurisdiction.

Most persons buying large boats have been very successful business persons. Use the same approach you would have in business and don't let your heart or lust lead you astray. I've known people to ignore every sound business practice they've had for 30 or 40 years because they fell in love with the image of a specific boat and were easy sells for smooth talking salespersons. It's a business transaction and treat it as such. You never enter multi million dollar contracts in business without full legal review, but people do so regularly on boats. You never paid huge deposits in business without some form of protection but people do so regularly on boats. You never entrusted millions of dollars of production to someone you'd never dealt with halfway across the world in business without firm oversight, but people do it every day on boats.