You have a claim against the surveyor, if you wish to pursue it. The hour meters are basic items that should have been checked. That is why you hire a surveyor, to inspect and test systems and equipment. He would have professional liability for the oversight. His contract may suggest that he assumes no liability, but most of that is to convince others not to file a claim, and doesn't actual hold water legally.
You may have a claim against the seller for failure to disclose a defect of which he should reasonably have known. The purchase contract may try to absolve him of responsibility once the inspection period expires. You would have to read the contract. If the transaction was for real estate, there is still seller liability for failure to disclose a known defect regardless of the disclaimer. Law regarding boats is its own world and only a maritime attorney could give you a valid opinion for your specific situation.
Only you can decide if you want to pursue either the seller or surveyor, but don't dismiss the idea because of the advice you are getting here. Everyone has an opinion, but most of them in this thread are legally incorrect.
I try to stay out of these threads but couldn't stand by this one any longer.
Good luck.
Well, your theory is filled with weaknesses. First, this isn't real estate and isn't subject to any of the disclosure laws. It isn't even subject to auto sales laws.
This is not a maritime law issue, just a simple contract law issue.
Now, let's just say he sued the surveyor and won, which based on most survey contracts isn't likely. But then there's the question of proving damages. So far, there is no evidence of any damages.
Now, as to legal advice no one here is claiming to be an attorney. However, just because you might have some legal rights, doesn't mean it's worth pursuing them. You really want to spend money on lawyers to win a case where you can't prove damages? Oh, you want to prove the owner knew. Fine. Better hire an investigator, pay fees, incur the legal cost of depositions. He could sue in small claims court but doesn't have the evidence needed. To take this aggressively through the court system then would cost ten's of thousand's of dollars. You''d have to prove how many more hours it had and that the party knew it had that many, then the value of that loss.
There are two elements that would have to be proven.
1. That whoever you're suing made a material misrepresentation with the intent of misleading the buyer and causing harm to the buyer.
2. That the buyer actually suffered financial harm as a result and what the amount of his loss was.
This is the kind of suit no one ever benefits from unless some other piece of vital information suddenly surfaces.
