UK and Europe · Public discussion

missing grease

Started by Andy Koppe · · Last activity · 3 posts · 668 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
21 July 2003
Last activity
22 July 2003
Original author
Andy Koppe
Posts
3
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
668
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–3 of 3
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. A friend of mine was complaining about having to press the lever unusually hard to get any effect on
    the rear V-brakes on her bike. I agreed to take a look: checked brake pad positions, oiled cables
    and lever, but no improvement. So I took a look inside one of the brakes and found that it had never
    seen any grease or oil and that its coil spring was therefore quite badly corroded.

    She had bought the bike in a local shop about a year and a half ago, with a one-year warranty on it.
    I presume the missing grease was a genuine mistake, rather than a ruse to get return business. Now
    is there any law or regulation compelling the shop to rectify its mistake, i.e. replace the corroded
    brake even though the warranty has elapsed? Or will my friend have to rely on goodwill?

    Cheers, Andy

  2. Quoted message said:

    She had bought the bike in a local shop about a year and a half ago, with a one-year warranty on
    it. I presume the missing grease was a genuine mistake, rather than a ruse to get return business.
    Now is there any law or regulation compelling the shop to rectify its mistake, i.e. replace the
    corroded brake even though the warranty has elapsed? Or will my friend have to rely on goodwill?

    Firstly, IANAL.

    In theory, the shop should be selling a product that is "fit for its intended purpose". However, you
    would have to prove that a) an unlubricated bike was unfit for its intended purpose, b) you couldn't
    possibly have spotted it before now given reasonable attention and maintenance, and c) it was never
    lubricated in the first place. I would imagine that proving a+b+c would be nigh-on impossible, so if
    it were me, I'd talk nicely to the bike shop.

    R.

  3. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Richard said:

    In theory, the shop should be selling a product that is "fit for its intended purpose". However,
    you would have to prove that a) an unlubricated bike was unfit for its intended purpose, b) you
    couldn't possibly have spotted it before now given reasonable attention and maintenance, and c) it
    was never lubricated in the first place. I would imagine that proving a+b+c would be nigh-on
    impossible, so if it were me, I'd talk nicely to the bike shop.

    The last sentence sounds more than reasonable to me. If you go into your LBS with all guns blazing
    you are likely to meet with a small degree of antagonism. If you go in and say that you have a small
    problem they will normally be very accomodating. It wouldn't happen in my shop - these parts are on
    the check list.

    --
    A T (Sandy) Morton on the Bicycle Island In the Global Village sandymillport.fsnet.co.uksandymillport.fsnet.co.uk

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.