# C&C warranty issues



## user (Mar 19, 2010)

So what happened with all the C&C/ Tartan issues? I have a C&C that I need some warranty work done on, and am having a bit of a 'delay' getting a response from the factory. Advice?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

You can find some info on it here:

Tartan/C&C/Novis/GRC? Fined by OSHA - Boating, Sailing and Cruising Forum: For Cruisers - BY Cruisers

Good luck.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Good luck... Ross/Jackett/Novis are doing their damn best to dodge any semblance of responsibility for the warranty problems that Tartan/C&C owners have. Your 15 year warranty isn't worth the paper it is written on if they have their way. Go read this *thread on the A-S forum. *


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

User, 

As mentioned above, much of that info you're looking for is no longer available here on Sailnet. The owners of this website got in a legal tussle with the owners of T/C&C, and rather than go to court decided to remove the information from this site. Sorry about that. Hopefully you can find what you need elsewhere.

Also sorry to hear about those warranty difficulties. Is yours an epoxy boat? What kinds of problems are you having? What year is it?


----------



## ehmanta (Sep 12, 2006)

Well,
Tartan/C&C should have money to support their warrantees if they just purchased Legacy Yachts to add to their line.....
Tartan Yachts Model Downloads - Tartan C&C Yachts Acquires Legacy Yachts


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

user said:


> I have read through that thread.


I am just curious. Have you read the thread recently?
<O</OAre you aware of some of the recent developments?

<O</ODid you know that in one of the "Isolated Instances" as you called it, that the owner of the boat was awarded a court settlement in an amount of over $330,000.00?
<O</O<O</O



> Moving on, I was looking for some info and possibly advice as to how to proceed when I get no response from the factory.


<O</O
<O</O
How to proceed when you get no response from the factory?<O</O
Well, I guess you would have to contact an attorney.<O</O
<O</O


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Oh boy - here we go again.


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

Once again a "user" comes out of nowhere to defend a crooked company. Of course it doesn't really matter, this entire thread will be deleted by tartans boot lickers soon


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Odd that they can afford to buy Legacy Yachts, but not pay their attorneys, suppliers, and the customer who won a $350,000 settlement against them...


ehmanta said:


> Well,
> Tartan/C&C should have money to support their warrantees if they just purchased Legacy Yachts to add to their line.....
> Tartan Yachts Model Downloads - Tartan C&C Yachts Acquires Legacy Yachts


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

user said:


> So what happened with all the C&C/ Tartan issues? I have a C&C that I need some warranty work done on, and am having a bit of a 'delay' getting a response from the factory. Advice?


Did you call them?

Brian


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

eMKay said:


> Once again a "user" comes out of nowhere to defend a crooked company. Of course it doesn't really matter, this entire thread will be deleted by tartans boot lickers soon


Okay, just to clear the air here -- when "user" first posted I did a quick check, and I would ask that you please just accept his comments at face value. I have every reason to believe he's a legitimate owner asking for help with a legitimate problem. Don't everyone jump to conclusions, please.



sailingdog said:


> Odd that they can afford to buy Legacy Yachts, but not pay their attorneys, suppliers, and the customer who won a $350,000 settlement against them...


If I'm not mistaken, Legacy had been shut down in bankruptcy for a while already. If so, I doubt it cost much to acquire them....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Legacy had been shut down in bankruptcy for a while already. If so, I doubt it cost much to acquire them....


I bet it was more than $350,000 though.


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

user said:


> Not sure if there was a previous "user", but allegations that I came from somewhere to defend something is absolutely ridiculous. This is the kind of stuff I do not want to get involved with.
> 
> I have a boat, it has an issue that is large in my opinion, and I just want some simple advice and knowledge to get started. I do not want to accuse, or defend, until I have all the facts. Anything else that you conjure up here is irresponsible and discredits this forum as a valuable tool and yourself as having an objective, informed opinion.


Nicely put IMO 

I hope you are able to resolve your issues in a timely manner.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

User:

There is a long history here with Tartan and I would ask both you and eMKay to just drop it. No reason to dig that up again. This is a serious thread and wwe will help direct if we can.

Now, what is your issue? Have you called them? When did you reach out to them? Have you not gotten any response? How can we help?

And any members here that feel a need to jump in for or against Tartan, just save your breath as you know what will happen. Just the facts here. That is all that will last.

Brian


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JRP and CD are the most level-headed guys around here (as you can already see). So my advice is to listen to them and blow off everything else. This is a great site - and you'll like it. 

Welcome to SN dude.

(Edited because CD already nailed it.)


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

user said:


> The boat is a CC115. It has a serious (IMO) construction geometry error. I have inquired through a thread on another site about the actual performance consequences, and it seems that the opinion is that the difference may be negligible. However, cosmetically, in principal, and being marketed as a race boat, it is unacceptable. We spent so much time looking up at the mast trying to figure out the problem that we never looked at the deck, so it took a while to find the issue.
> 
> I have emailed C&C twice and left two voicemails. It has been only a week so far, but that is plenty of time to bang out a short reply or return a call at least acknowledging the problem. I do not feel that it is time for an attorney yet, however should that time come I want to be prepared rather than starting my preparation when the time comes.
> 
> ...


Now you've really piqued my curiosity, with "construction geometry issues."

Could you elaborate a little more what you mean by that, and what the symptoms are?

I'm wondering whether the mast-step could be off-center, or ????? Intriguing....


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

user said:


> The deck is off center, and then the mast step is off center to keep the mast plumb. Picture the deck as a package- shroud bases, car tracks, partners... the whole thing looks like they placed it on the hull wrong, trimmed it to fit like that, glassed it in. Then, the mast step had to be moved over to keep the mast plumb. You can even see it by looking at the chainplates in the cabin: starboard goes straight up; port angles towards the center of boat. Now that we have discovered it, it is blatant to the eye- you don't need a tape measure to see it.
> 
> Either they saw it at the factory and moved the step to match, or that is one hell of a coincidence.
> 
> Disclaimer: Life happens. Lets just fix it.


Wow. First time I've heard that one.

I hope they can help you with it. However, if you don't get any response/satisfaction, my suggestion would be to quietly contact an attorney to represent you, and file a formal claim against them asap.

As much as it makes for good reading, I can't recommend that you pursue this via the internet airwaves. So far, I haven't seen where anyone has gained the advantage by doing that.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

What hull number is your boat? I remember reading somewhere that they did a rush job on hull #1 to get it out to the boatshows on time.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

user said:


> I was just thinking that. Thanks to all for the advice. I think I have all that I need, and I can see the volatility of this issue. Hopefully I will come back on here and post a good story about a painless fix. Out.


Okay. Understood.

But if you're willing to come back later, we'll be very interested to hear how this all turns out. You might actually be able to help someone in a similar situation with the experience you gain.

All the best of luck to you, and here's hoping for a speedy resolution.


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

Gentleman,
I am not trying to be a smart ass and my first comment was completely serious as is my following comment.

User, 
I hope that you do get your issues resolved and I hope that the manufacturer stands firmly behind their product.

Now, with that said, is it not strange that we are having the same conversation once again with the same manufacturer invloved? Almost like there is a pattern developing?


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Since this is a construction problem (not a failure problem); I need to ask if you had the boat surveyed when it was being commissioned (pre-delivery)? If you did then this might fall back to the surveyor as such an obvious problem was not found by him/her. If you did not survey the boat then it's possible that you have no claim against the MFR since you completed the purchase and now own the flawed boat. Visible defects such as this should be found and corrected pre-delivery (before escrow closes and you sail away).

I'm sorry that you have discovered the problem now rather than before you took delivery. I also don't think that the MFR -should- be able to get away with this poor quality of construction; but it's possible that they will. If your boat carries a mortgage then you might consider talking with the lender about the problem to see if they have any recourse since they would hold a large interest in the value of a defective boat.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Unfortunately, as people post issues with Tartan/C&C, it tends to dredge up the facts of the legal troubles they're having.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

KH-

Many "construction" problems would not be detectable to a surveyor on a brand new boat, and the "problem" may not have surfaced until the boat had been used a bit. IIRC, that was the case in the settled lawsuit. Legally, even if he didn't have the boat surveyed, a manufacturing defect is still the responsibility of Tartan/C&C/Novis/Jackett etal. The boat comes with a 15 year warranty IIRC.


KeelHaulin said:


> Since this is a construction problem (not a failure problem); I need to ask if you had the boat surveyed when it was being commissioned (pre-delivery)? If you did then this might fall back to the surveyor as such an obvious problem was not found by him/her. If you did not survey the boat then it's possible that you have no claim against the MFR since you completed the purchase and now own the flawed boat. Visible defects such as this should be found and corrected pre-delivery (before escrow closes and you sail away).
> 
> I'm sorry that you have discovered the problem now rather than before you took delivery. I also don't think that the MFR -should- be able to get away with this poor quality of construction; but it's possible that they will. If your boat carries a mortgage then you might consider talking with the lender about the problem to see if they have any recourse since they would hold a large interest in the value of a defective boat.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Thansk for stopping in USER. Does not mean you need to be a stranger on other things in the forum. Stop by anytime.

Brian


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> Many "construction" problems would not be detectable to a surveyor on a brand new boat, and the "problem" may not have surfaced until the boat had been used a bit.


I agree; but this one would. This is precisely the reason WHY you would pay a competent surveyor 0.1% of the purchase price to survey and sea trial. Because they are going to give the boat a good looking over without all of the emotion that goes along with buying a new boat. If a competent surveyor had looked directly at the chainplate attachments he/she would have questioned the asymmetry and then started looking for the reason why.



sailingdog said:


> Legally, even if he didn't have the boat surveyed, a manufacturing defect is still the responsibility of Tartan/C&C/Novis/Jackett etal. The boat comes with a 15 year warranty IIRC.


It depends on how the warranty is worded; it could only cover failure of material defects or failures due to incorrect assembly (like a bolt that was not properly torqued; etc).

IMHO if it were a company such as Catalina we would not even be aware that it happened; because they would have quietly taken the boat back and replaced it already. This is a situation where you find out what your warranty paperwork is "worth".


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

KH- The warranty for the C&C boats, at least those built after 2003, is located *here*. Basically, the same warranty applies to the Tartan boats built after 2003.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

For what it was worth, years ago I considered buying a Tartan built Soverel 33 that reportedly had exactly the same problem. On that boat, the chain plate that was not aligned with the shroud had actually crushed the deck and moved sidewards because of the misalignment. By the time I saw the boat, much of this had corrected, albeit not very neatly. 

Good luck getting your claim resolved,

Jeff


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> KH- The warranty for the C&C boats, at least those built after 2003, is located *here*. Basically, the same warranty applies to the Tartan boats built after 2003.


Materials/workmanship warranty is only for 12 months...

15 years for chainplates, mast-step, and floor timbers only...


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

My first thought when I read this -- was there a problem with the hull geometry and they tried to salvage an expensive hull mistake by trimming the deck to fit. 

The problems may run much deeper. I think I'd get a competent surveyor to look the boat over. That way you know what you have on your hands.

Good luck User, I feel for you.

Jim


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, as long as the initial complaints about the boat were filed prior to the 12 month deadline, the claim is probably grandfathered.


----------



## hardalee22 (Nov 3, 2006)

Sometimes having a 30 year old boat doesn't sound like such a bad idea. In all seriousness, I hope this works out for you. I'm guessing that many surveyors would have missed this problem as it is not common to come across problems like the ones you have described. Good luck.


----------



## PorFin (Sep 10, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> It depends on how the warranty is worded; it could only cover failure of material defects or failures due to incorrect assembly (like a bolt that was not properly torqued; etc).


My common sense voice is telling me that an improperly positioned mast and/or deck would fall into the "incorrect assembly" category (and hey, if you're gonna screw up, why not do it in a major way?)


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

What I meant was that a *FAILURE *of a component due to it being incorrectly assembled could be covered. This was just a hypothetical to point out how elusive warranty literature can be from covering you when you find a problem. The actual wording of his contract will tell if the boat is covered for these problems under the warranty or not.

The issue with warranties is usually not what is covered; it's what is not covered. In many instances there are so many loopholes; the warranty document is better suited for toilet tissue than as a binding document for repair coverage. The coverage that Novis is providing seems very minimal; I would like to see what other companies are offering on boats that are priced at several hundred thousand.

While I pointed out that this problem should have been caught and fixed during a pre-commisioning survey or sea-trial; I also want to say that the owner is not without recourse and that the warranty is only one avenue to pursue getting this boat fixed or replaced.

I don't think a good surveyor who has experience surveying new boats would miss this problem. One look at the chainplate mounts with a good eye for any problems would have discovered an asymmetric assembly. That should clearly point to more serious problems with the construction. In addition; surveyors carry insurance that will cover them in the event that they missed a problem with a hull that resulted in the loss, injury, or depreciation in value due to the discovery of a glaring defect. While I don't feel that the surveyor should be held liable for every small thing; I do think it is his/her responsibility to find obvious construction problems such as this one.

Is the mast deck-stepped? If it's offset from where the compression post is located inside; the argument could be made that the boat is not structurally sound and could cause an injury or death if the rig comes down. I would find the best marine surveyor you can find in your area and explain the problem you are having so he can prepare a survey that points out what is wrong and suggests what should be done to repair it. Then send this with a letter from an attorney to Novis (with the suggestion that you may forward it to the Cosumer Product Safety Commission; and USCG).

In addition it's possible that the lein holder carries insurance for problems like this; or they might choose to write off the boat if you stopped paying the loan (I know this is a last resort). It seems that it would be in a mortgage company's best interest to pay for the repair than to write off the hull value.

You could pursue a lawsuit; but depending on what the lawer costs would be and the chances for winning a settlement, it might make more economic sense to walk away from the investment.


----------



## Rustyf (Nov 7, 2007)

I looked at the warranty link provided by SD. The warranty is only transferrable if the bought is sold to the second purchaser and the sale is through a Tartan dealer.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

Well this is the sort of thing that really ruins your day. Sorry to hear about your problem User. It's hard to know from what you've posted, and I certainly am not the most technically qualified person to opine (not that it ever stops me), but if the mast partners and mast step were installed in the wrong place (i.e., off centered), I don't see a builder (particularly this one) undertaking that fix. You are talking about cutting a new hole in the deck for the mast, then closing up the old in a cosmetically acceptable way. That may require new routing of running rigging and wiring. Then, you need to move the mast step. I can't imagine that gets done without having to re-do the interior furniture and cabin floorboards. You also might need to replace/move the chainplates, which again has cosmetic issues, not just structural (and ofttimes it's the cosmetic issues that make repairs very difficult).

I won't get into the details, but I have a little professional experience with the Tartan/C&C situation at this point, and its problems do not appear to be isolated.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

KeelHaulin said:


> IMHO if it were a company such as Catalina we would not even be aware that it happened; because they would have quietly taken the boat back and replaced it already. This is a situation where you find out what your warranty paperwork is "worth".


Agreed - totally. I have seen Catalina in particular eat things they should never have had to eat. Frank Butler used to (not sure if he still does now) call the owners directly on warranty claims. Now THAT is a company that stands behind their products and takes their reputation seriously. That is one of the reasons I have purchased 4 of their boats: top notch support.

Brian


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

From this website
C&C Yachts Home - Construction
is the following paragraph.
"Our hull-to-deck joint is a 35-year time-tested structure consisting of all inward flange in the hull incorporating a 6061, T6 hardened aluminum backing bar. The resulting joint is bonded with 3M's sturdy 5200 adhesive sealant. This C&C construction technique provides our owners the most secure hull-to-deck joint in the industry and also COur hull-to-deck joint is a 35-year time-tested structure consisting of all inward flange in the hull incorporating a 6061, T6 hardened aluminum backing bar. The resulting joint is bonded with 3M's sturdy 5200 adhesive sealant. This C&C construction technique provides our owners the most secure hull-to-deck joint in the industry and also allows serviceability from outside the boat.

I thought I understood it until the part "and also allows serviceability from outside the boat."
What do they mean by that?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

How can you service something that is bonded with 5200???


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> How can you service something that is bonded with 5200???


How is an inward facing flange serviceable from the outside of the boat?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

With a jackhammer... 


davidpm said:


> How is an inward facing flange serviceable from the outside of the boat?


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

I'm visualizing a joint like this:
So I'm trying to visualize what happened. If the deck is set on top of the hull and the molds were right, it has to line up. If it is set to one side it would overlap on one side and be short the other side, not even possible to attach.
What I'm afraid may have happened is that the hull wracked, maybe some internal bracing was missing, so the the deck guys thought it looked ok but the whole boat is distorted. I have heard of boats being removed from the mold too early. If that is the case the problem is bigger than it seems.

If the hull is the right shape and the deck was just put on a little to one side the overhang could have been routed off but the shortage on the other side would be obvious.

Knowing exactly what happened to cause the problem will take some investigative work.


----------



## BlandingFarm (Mar 18, 2008)

Did you purchase the boat new? Did you contact the dealer that sold you the boat? BTW Legacy did not file bankruptcy.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

One easy way to do a rough check of the boat and whether it was racked... photograph it and flip the photo 180˚ and see if they overlap. In theory, the boat should be symmetrical along the longitudinal axis.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I think you need to get a survey; that should "value" the boat based on it's flawed condition. The value of a total loss (say it sank and could not be recovered) is what the current market value of the boat is, which I'm sure is much less than what you paid; without interest. But the value of an incorrectly constructed boat may be way less than current market (which would deem it a write-off if it could not be fixed inexpensively).

I don't know what "significant amount" is for a down payment or how long you have owned the boat and paid on it; so I can't comment on what you would be losing by walking away. I am only trying to make the point that if you were invested in the boat for less than 25% or so of the original price (in equity) then it might make sense to get out now (or at least discuss this with your lender as a re-negotiation point). The lien-holder (who actually "owns" the boat) would stand to lose much more and would be motivated to either sue Novis on your behalf or obtain an insurance write-off for -their- loss. If they wrote-off the boat; you might get it for a reduced sum or for what you have already paid.

In addition; there is the distinct possibility that the lender would not try and re-posses the boat knowing that it was seriously flawed. What are they going to do with a boat that is a write-off? Pay for it's demolition? I think they would sooner release the lien than take possession.


----------



## doubleeboy (Jul 21, 2008)

User, 

Is your boat located in the Puget Sound area? Reason I ask is last week I heard of a 115 here that has the exact problem you are describing. I don't know the parties involved, but I do know someone who saw the boat and I trust his decades of experience, his view was this is a very serious flaw.

Hope it works out for you.
michael


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

User,
Best of luck. Please keep this thread updated when you hear something.

Jim


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I understand the position you are in; and believe me, I am not advocating litigation if it is not necessary (nobody really "wins" once the lawyers start billing hours). I'm only giving you things to consider if Novis fails to make it right (which everyone here hopes that they do). The deck offset was not your mistake; and I hope that this issue is resolved un-eventfully for you.

You came to us mentioning warranty issues; and asking "what to do". If you don't get satisfaction from Novis; see the above posts in this thread for possible avenues of minimizing financial loss...


----------



## doubleeboy (Jul 21, 2008)

User,

Irregardless of how well you have been treated by C&C in the past, this could be a big issue. Spending a few hundred to consult a surveyor could be money very well spent. I know I sound like a broken record on Sailnet regarding Seattle area surveyors but here it is again..... Erik Bentzen. He knows boats, particularly quick boats like yours. His name comes up in every conversation about quality surveyors in the Northwest. At least give him a call and have a chat.

hope this works out for you
michael


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

doubleeboy said:


> Irregardless of how well you have been treated by C&C in the past, this could be a big issue. Spending a few hundred to consult a surveyor could be money very well spent.


My point exactly; put aside anything I have said about protecting yourself financially and get a survey. This will help tell you what to do. The surveyor may tell you that the boat is not safe to sail; which is a bigger issue than if Novis will repair it; or the financial considerations.


----------



## Gramp34 (Oct 5, 2006)

davidpm said:


> From this website
> ....inward flange in the hull incorporating a 6061, T6 hardened aluminum backing bar. ..... and also allows serviceability from outside the boat.
> 
> I thought I understood it until the part "and also allows serviceability from outside the boat."
> What do they mean by that?


My guess is the fasteners for the toerail are screwed into tapped holes in the aluminum backing bar under the flange.

If you want to take off the toerail for some reason, you don't need someone holding a wrench under the deck.

That'll make the job much easier. 

Tim


----------



## ehmanta (Sep 12, 2006)

I would assume that the toerail fabrication is the same as my T-37, where the toerail is bolted down every 6" -8" using 1/4" bolts that are recieved into tapped holes in the aluminum plate that is fiberglassed into the inward-turned flange on the hull. If you ever have to remove these bolts, there will most likely be some corrosion due to dissimilar metals, so an impact driver may be necessary. 
I was getting nervous about Novis marine recently (two days ago) when I called their service/parts phone number on their website and got a "not in service" response. Then I called the dealer in Annapolis and they gave me another number, which I called and got the same response. I then e-mailed the parts department...my e-mail bounced back....mmmmm. I filled out a purchase inquiry on their website about buying a new boat and finally got a quick response both by phone and e-mail. The person I talked to said that they are busy and have 11 orders for new boats and that the rumors about their demise is only rumors. The person I talked to was happy to answer my technical questions regarding my 1977 T-37, so what this all means, is anybody's guess 
All I hope for with Novis is that they correct things that they should and make their buyers happy.....isn't that what a good company should do?


----------



## doubleeboy (Jul 21, 2008)

Any update on how this problem is being resolved, if at all? Did a surveyor look at the boat yet?

michael


----------



## doubleeboy (Jul 21, 2008)

Thanks for the update, you have my sympathies, what a monumental headache. I would consult a rigger if you haven't already, if you need recommendations holler. If your surveyor wasn't Erik, give him a call for a chat he is very good.

Keep us posted, Good Luck
michael


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Now that I am seeing this boat is in PS, I am wondering which 115 this is? % or so dk blue, one maybe 2 red ones, one that is lt blue/grey, altho the dealer still has that one...........

any way, hope it gets fixed, not sure MSC has anything to say, other than they should have sold it new, unless it came out of the BC dealer initially.

Marty


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

user said:


> Without going into alot of detail just yet here is the update: response from factory through dealer after 6 weeks of repeated calls and emails was basically this (not a direct quote): "its just the gunwhale is out, not the deck. The mast is centered, the boat is a bit bigger on one side than the other". The story is that when the hull is pulled from the mold, nothing is holding the sides of the hull in place before the deck is placed on. So one side can fall away more than the other and then the deck is trimmed to whatever hull shape is there.
> 
> This does not expain many of the other indicators that I see on the boat, (like below deck) so I am pulling it tomorrow and putting the laser on it (keel, rudder, mast). I hope that they are right and that I am wrong. Not the best QC but it would at least mean the mast and shrouds are centered on the keel. Yes a surveyor looked at it and he is just shaking his head. No one knows exactly what is going in here. Fun stuff.
> 
> ...


That is incredible.



> "its just the gunwhale is out, not the deck. The mast is centered, the boat is a bit bigger on one side than the other".


In your place, I'd be arranging legal representation. You need to play hard ball with these people. Not on the internet -- in court.

Good luck to you.


----------



## monteh (Jan 5, 2008)

How many inches is the one side bigger or pushed out? One, two?


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Wow; they don't cradle/shim the hull correctly, then they just say "that's how it's made"? Getting the hull symmetric before the deck goes on is one of the most important parts of boat construction. This is the reason why it is a bad idea to lift your deck completely off of the hull (say to re-bed the toerail); because if the hull could shift and make it very difficult to re-assemble.

I think that if Novis won't either repair or replace; it's time to lawyer-up.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

I understand that the new owner of Tartan and C&C is Hanover Marine, LLC. If they bought it as an asset purchase agreement, they might not be liable for any warranties on the boats built by the previous owner. 

Sometimes companies in that position will honor warranty claims as a matter of good will.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Isn't that just another name change by Tim Jackett? That's what I thought was going on the last time we discussed -the new- C&C/Tartan's business practices (the thread was deleted under threat of legal action against Sailnet).


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Hanover Marine is a shell corporation run by Jackett/Ross/et al and was probably formed for the specific purpose of dodging old liabilities, including warranty issues. This is NOT the first time that Jackett/Ross et al have done this. I would seriously doubt that they would honor any warranty given all the efforts they've gone to in order to dump such liability.



slap said:


> I understand that the new owner of Tartan and C&C is Hanover Marine, LLC. If they bought it as an asset purchase agreement, they might not be liable for any warranties on the boats built by the previous owner.
> 
> Sometimes companies in that position will honor warranty claims as a matter of good will.


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

The only way to solve the issues with this company is to make everyone aware of the problems so nobody buys their boats anymore. Then they will either go out of business or be forced to sell to someone who can build them properly. Total shame what has happened to two great brands.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out that this isn't slander if what you're saying is true. One defense to the charge of slander/libel/defamation is truth...



> Again- these boys have a great chance to put all this negative publicity to a stop by taking care of my boat and then my subsequent posting of the solution here on this thread. Let us give them a chance to do so without slandering them further. I will keep this thread updated when there is something substantial and definative to report either way. All the advice has been great; I have received the advice and information I requested and needed. I did not want to start a slander-fest and I want to give them a chance to show me what they are made of today, not re-hash what they have done in the past. Thanks.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Where in this thread has anyone said anything slanderous or libelous? My comment was to the FACT that they have re-named the company under the same ownership. If I recall this was done as part of a bankruptcy re-organization as they were being sued by multiple creditors. If I am wrong on this please let me know and I will delete this comment; but I am fairly certain that this is what happened and it is in the public record.

As to the issue of your hull; we are not describing the problem. We are commenting on what you (and your survey) have described as a defective hull that is so out of whack it is difficult to determine what the problem really is.

I suggest that you contact a lawyer and find out how long you can wait before filing suit because there may be time limitations that would come into play with a company that is slow to respond or non-responsive.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Folks,

I think User is just trying to prevent this thread from turning into a great big pile-on, sling-fest. 

Right now, his preferred strategy is to work through the builder and persuade them to remedy his problem under warranty. He realizes that giving the builder a whole bunch of bad press on the internet will not serve that purpose (we all know how that turned out for others who've tried).

I don't blame him at all. 

He's pledged to keep us apprised of the outcome. Let's see how this works out now.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

davidpm said:


> I'm visualizing a joint like this:
> So I'm trying to visualize what happened. If the deck is set on top of the hull and the molds were right, it has to line up. If it is set to one side it would overlap on one side and be short the other side, not even possible to attach.
> What I'm afraid may have happened is that the hull wracked, maybe some internal bracing was missing, so the the deck guys thought it looked ok but the whole boat is distorted. I have heard of boats being removed from the mold too early. If that is the case the problem is bigger than it seems.
> 
> ...


So it looks like some variation of the hull moved after being taken out of the mold theory is is the current top contender.
But instead of the boat being wracked but the right width maybe the beam of the boat is too wide. I can envison a dozen different variations of this. 
An exceedingly tedious process would be to take offsets. This is the same process used to preseve the design of a classic boat where the plans were lost.

This is sold as a high tech design. I would expect a tolerance of an 1/8 to a 1/4 inch to design specs.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

User, 

best of luck, bigger and more well heeled are in line before you. The guys here tried to let you know, and now you do. This company is unlike others in the way they avoid problems. You are just scratching the surface.

This will likely be removed, as was the last story, similar to yours. The company you are dealing with, sadly, has a room full of lawyers to snuff out these forums rather than spend that $$$ on fixing or redesigning the process to build.

It is truly sad that this manufacturer has such low regard for what was once a remarkable product and legacy.

Best of luck, you will need it!
dave


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

user - I'm not an attorney, but if this is the route you're going to go you should stop posting about this stuff right now. Don't put up another word. Find legal counsel and go from there.

If you keep at it in a public form, it won't turn out well. That's pretty much a given.

(PS - The above is purely opinion and is free. So take it for what it's worth.)


----------



## user (Mar 19, 2010)

I have received what I need... thank you


----------



## doubleeboy (Jul 21, 2008)

User, have you had any luck in getting this problem resolved? An update would be appreciated.

thanks
michael


----------



## user (Mar 19, 2010)

I sold the boat. After waiting 6 months I got nothing but stall stall stall. Excuses like " I thought it was taken care of" and reports of "there is no problem". I heard from others in the loop that it was being reported as "just some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about." When, after 4 months, I threatened the factory and backed it up with a certified letter, I finally got a return call and some promises but then more stalling. No one EVER looked at the problem specifically in SIX MONTHS; they did however spend alot of time explaining it away, talking about tolerances, how I shouldn't sue them, and salesmenlike promises that they would look at it. I still have all the emails and the history- but you know what? Its not worth it. Advice to anyone looking for a boat: buy one that is quality built and has the historical backing, not just the promises, of a good reputable builder. I am not saying don't buy a C&C because I did love that boat, and it was an awesome sailing machine even with the issues. Just know what you are buying and buyer beware. Huge learning experience for me (and a very expensive one I might add)- I hope we all can pass on some knowledge and advice here to help out the next guy.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

WOW!! Is all I can say...

thanks for your candid report...you may want to post something similar at:
Tartan/C&C Change Hands

as they have posted the "great" news....


----------



## doubleeboy (Jul 21, 2008)

User, 

Thank you for the update. Sorry to hear it turned out this way. If you haven't bought another boat and need a sailing fix, send me a private message and we will go out for an afternoon.

michael


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Was this the boat at a dealer in Seattle proper IIRC. Red hull? I can see why you did not sell thru MSC if they gave you the run around etc. I know the one they had for the last what 3 yrs finally sold. Wonder what type of hit it took to get rid of it, along with the 3700CCR that sat for 3-4 yrs or there abouts.

Now MSC is also selling Hunter, along with Jeanneau, C&C, Tartan, Hylas, seawind cats, laser's etal. 

I can get you a ride if you need a fix too, I'm in Edmonds.

marty


----------



## user (Mar 19, 2010)

LET ME CLARIFY: THE DEALER DID NOT GIVE ME THE "RUN-AROUND".

The factory did. The dealer is a bunch of good guys that really tried to help me. Their hands were tied. I would by another boat from them in a heartbeat. This was the third one I have bought from them and I can say nothing but good about MSC.

It was not a red hull. It is not important what boat it was, just that this happened. I sold it on Craigslist for what I figured the market was - minus the 10% fee a dealer would charge to sell it. So I got what I would have by selling it through a dealer. The buyer is happy- and informed I might add. According to the warranty he still has a claim- for whatever that's worth!


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Ok, good to know MSC did not give you the run around. I've bought a few sails from Jeff/ullman, he has been great to work with. Not that it is good, but glad to know the factory was the issue, and not the dealer. I'm sure they are glad to be gone with the one they had for 3 yrs, along with the last tartan.

Now if the owner can sell his 49iP, they will be happier too.


----------

