The greatest legal risk in a yacht sale is not always hidden in the engine room, the registry or the VAT file. More often, it sits in plain sight – in the document everyone calls “standard”. The superyacht market loves templates: MYBA forms, charter forms, guarantees, novations, delivery lists, KYC schedules, stakeholder clauses and redlines circulate at speed. They promise efficiency and familiarity; they also promise that the market has seen it all before.

However, a template is not a transaction – and when the template starts driving the deal rather than serving it, a simple asset sale can quietly mutate into something far more dangerous: a quasi-M&A process, under foreign legal language, with personal guarantees, tax statements and historical compliance comfort that no prudent seller or adviser should give without proper scope, price and due diligence. This is the template trap.

Asset sale or shadow share deal?
In many yacht transactions, the economic reality is straightforward: one company sells a yacht while another company, individual or nominee buys it. The object is the vessel – not the seller’s company, not its entire historical operation, not its accounts, not its tax life, not its charter business as such. That is an asset deal.

In an asset deal, the legitimate questions are clear. Does the seller exist? Is it properly authorised? Does it own the yacht? Is the yacht free from mortgages, liens and encumbrances? Are there known vessel-related claims? Can the yacht be delivered with the necessary registry, crew, technical and VAT documentation? Can the buyer or nominee complete, register and operate the yacht? These are proper questions.

What is not proper is the gradual importation of share-deal logic through the back door. When a buyer asks for broad confirmations that the yacht has always been operated in compliance with “all applicable laws, rules and regulations” or demands tax-adviser certificates on historical operations or seeks personal UBO comfort for issues far beyond vessel-related liabilities, the transaction has moved beyond the yacht. It has become a due-diligence exercise into the seller’s past. If that is what the buyer wants, then the transaction should be structured, priced and advised as such, but one cannot demand share-deal comfort inside an asset-deal price and timetable.

Words such as representation, warranty, indemnity, lien, arrest, tax liability and guarantee are not decorative, they are legal instruments. Under English-style drafting, they can create stand-alone liability, strict risk allocation and powerful enforcement mechanisms.

Common-law wording, civil-law parties
A further structural problem is that many European yacht transactions are pushed into common-law drafting even when the parties, the asset history and the tax logic are overwhelmingly civil-law and EU-based. A Croatian seller, a Dutch or Portuguese/Madeira buyer, a French VAT acquisition, an Italian departure port – and yet the operative contract language may be English law, MYBA-style warranty language, deeds, indemnities, personal guarantees, process agents and London arbitration. This is not automatically wrong. English law remains widely used in international yacht contracts. The problem is not the law itself, but the illusion that common-law contract language is simply “commercial English”. It is not.

Words such as representation, warranty, indemnity, lien, arrest, tax liability and guarantee are not decorative, they are legal instruments. Under English-style drafting, they can create stand-alone liability, strict risk allocation and powerful enforcement mechanisms. For civil-law parties, this creates a translation problem that is not linguistic but conceptual. A seller may read a clause as a factual comfort statement; the contract may operate it as a warranty; a broker may call it “market standard”; and a court or tribunal may later treat it as a binding indemnity-triggering promise. That gap is where much of the danger lies.

Broker-driven documentation
The broker has a vital function in the yacht market – without brokers, many transactions would never happen. They identify buyers, maintain momentum, coordinate stakeholders and close deals. But the broker’s economic incentive is completion. The legal adviser’s duty is different. Counsel must ask whether the client should sign, under what limits and with what residual exposure – and that difference matters. Broker organisations and market forms have created a powerful contract ecosystem which standardises transactions and often helps them move faster. However, it also creates a structural bias: the form becomes the benchmark, the template becomes the argument. “This is standard” replaces legal analysis. When seller’s counsel limits a warranty or refuses an unlimited guarantee, the reaction is often predictable: this may endanger the deal. And that is commercial pressure rather than a legal answer.

A broker is not usually the person who will be liable if a personal guarantee is triggered – a broker does not usually absorb VAT exposure if an intra-community structure fails nor does a broker carry the loss if a charter novation cannot be completed because a third party refuses to sign. The parties do.

A yacht sale contract is about the architecture of liability, not a shared note-taking exercise.

The anonymous mark-up problem
Another increasingly troubling feature of yacht transactions is the anonymous mark-up culture. Drafts move from broker to buyer, from buyer to lawyer, from lawyer to fiscal adviser, from fiscal adviser back to broker, then to the seller, often without a clean comparison to the previous version. Comments appear in colours and changes arrive without clear authorship. A clause is softened here, a guarantee expanded there, a VAT mechanism diluted elsewhere. At some point, no one can say with confidence who made which change and why. This is a governance failure in the contracting process, not just a harmless administrative inconvenience. In complex yacht sales involving VAT, existing charters, nominee buyers, fiscal representation and personal guarantees, anonymous redlining is not acceptable. Material legal risk should be negotiated directly at legal level by identified advisers with a clear mandate. A yacht sale contract is about the architecture of liability, not a shared note-taking exercise.

Personal guarantees: the UBO as hidden insurer
Personal guarantees are particularly sensitive. Where a seller is a company, the starting point is corporate liability. If the buyer asks the ultimate beneficial owner to sign a personal guarantee, the transaction pierces that separation. This may be commercially demanded, but it must never be treated as a harmless formality.

A personal guarantee should be limited in time, amount and scope, and should relate only to pre-delivery vessel-related liabilities. It should not become an insurance policy for the seller’s entire historic business, tax profile, charter operations, accounts or solvency. Neither should it cover technical condition, seaworthiness, survey findings, future flag suitability or the buyer’s post-completion use.

If a guarantee is unavoidable, the proper questions are:

• What exactly is guaranteed?
• For how long?
• Up to what amount?
• Are legal fees, interest, enforcement costs and arrest-release costs inside the cap?
• Does it cover only claims that can attach to the vessel?
• Does it exclude the buyer’s post-completion VAT, flagging, registration and charter operation?

If these answers are not clear, the UBO should not sign.

Adviser letters are not audit certificates
Buyers sometimes ask for letters from the seller’s tax adviser, fiscal representative or lawyer confirming that the yacht has been operated commercially in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. That wording should raise immediate alarm. No responsible adviser should certify global historic compliance unless specifically mandated to audit it. Such a statement may cover VAT, customs, charter operation, flag requirements, crew, employment, social security, port obligations, regulatory filings and local operating rules across jurisdictions and years. This is actually an audit opinion pretending to be a document-list item; what it is not is a closing letter. The only defensible formulation is an actual-knowledge statement, for example: “Based solely on information and documents made available to us in connection with our advisory mandate, and without independent audit or verification, we are not aware of any ongoing tax or customs audit or investigation with respect to the vessel and its operation.”

However, even that should be accompanied by a clear exclusion: “This statement is not a legal opinion, tax opinion, audit certificate, warranty, guarantee or indemnity, and does not confirm that the vessel has at all times been operated in compliance with all applicable laws, rules or regulations.” This is not lawyerly obstruction, it is professional discipline.

If the buyer cannot perform the charter after completion, that is not the seller’s risk.

VAT evidence is not historical absolution
EU VAT treatment requires evidence. In an intra-community supply, the seller and buyer must document the cross-border movement, VAT status, acquisition reporting and destination. Article 138 of the EU VAT Directive provides the framework for exempt intra-community supplies, and Article 45a of the Implementing Regulation deals with evidence presumptions for dispatch or transport between Member States. For yacht transactions, this means practical evidence: VAT numbers, VIES checks, marina invoices, berth confirmations, logbooks, captain’s statements, AIS or GPS data where available, arrival evidence and buyer-side acquisition reporting. That is legitimate, but VAT evidence for the sale is not the same as a guarantee that every historic operating year was flawless. Sellers should provide a defensible transaction file, not a retrospective absolution of the yacht’s entire commercial life. Nor should contracts create automatic fallback mechanisms into completely different VAT worlds. A planned Italy-to-France intra-community supply cannot casually become offshore delivery because a condition is missing. That is a different tax and customs logic, not a drafting convenience.

Charter novations: third parties cannot be guaranteed
Existing charters create another recurring problem. If a yacht is sold with a post-completion charter already booked, the seller can disclose the charter, sign a novation and cooperate. But the seller cannot guarantee that every independent third party will sign. Charterers, stakeholders and other intermediaries have their own rights, compliance requirements and commercial concerns. The correct seller obligation is not “procure at all costs”, it is “use reasonable endeavours”. Equally, the buyer or new owner must be party to the novation and must be able to perform the charter. That means flag, registration, insurance, crew, VAT handling, KYC and operational readiness. If the buyer cannot perform the charter after completion, that is not the seller’s risk.

What a yacht asset deal should contain
A disciplined yacht asset sale should focus on the vessel and the transaction. The essential architecture is not complicated:

• Corporate existence and authority.
• Title and freedom from encumbrances.
• Registry and deletion mechanics.
• Sea trial and condition survey.
• Crew releases and marina no-dues evidence.
• Known vessel-related claims.
• VAT treatment of the actual sale.
• Buyer or nominee VAT and KYC readiness.
• Charter novation on reasonable-endeavours terms.
• Any personal guarantee strictly capped and limited.

That is enough.

What should be resisted are unlimited historic compliance warranties, vague “all applicable laws” certificates, open-ended UBO exposure, source-of-wealth fishing expeditions not required by AML law or banks, and template clauses no one has fitted to the actual transaction.

The first question is not: which template do we use? The first question is: what is being sold? If the answer is “a yacht”, then the contract must remain yacht-centred.

The real discipline: concept before contract
In earlier discussions about yacht ownership structures, I have argued that the most expensive mistake often occurs before the first contract is signed: the yacht is chosen before the concept is built. The same is true at contract stage – the form should not be chosen before the legal architecture is understood.

The first question is not: which template do we use? The first question is: what is being sold? If the answer is “a yacht”, then the contract must remain yacht-centred. If the buyer wants the company, the structure, the tax history, the operations and the business model, then the transaction must be redesigned as M&A. What must not happen is a hybrid: asset-deal price, asset-deal speed, asset-deal documentation – but share-deal comfort, common-law guarantees and UBO exposure. This represents a risk transfer disguised as standardisation rather than efficiency.

The takeaway
The superyacht industry does not need to abandon standard forms, it needs to discipline them.

Templates are tools – they are not truth.
Brokers are facilitators – they are not risk absorbers.
Guarantees are liabilities – they are not formalities.
Adviser letters are limited statements – they are not audit certificates.
VAT evidence is transaction proof – it is not historical absolution.

The template must serve the transaction, the transaction must not be sacrificed to the template.

Click here to become part of The Superyacht Group community, and join us in our mission to make this industry accessible to all, and prosperous for the long-term. We are offering access to the superyacht industry’s most comprehensive and longstanding archive of business-critical information, as well as a comprehensive, real-time superyacht fleet database, for just £10 per month, because we are One Industry with One Mission. Sign up here.