Is that the standard one year, three months or what?

I know some of the car dealers around my way offer 3 months as standard and can sell you an extended warranty to increase that to a year.

In theory then these warranties are a rip off because you are covered anyway?!?

Patch isn't talking about a warranty, he's talking about implied fitness for purpose, which is part of the sale of goods act and applies automatically, though can be waived with situations such as a "sold as seen" sale.

How about registering his email addy for loads of Spam - That's surely legal!

Re: Time to name and shame..... you have been warned !!
 

Sounds like a lovely bloke :roll:

Re: Time to name and shame..... you have been warned !!
 

duly noted. :D though Im not sure Ive regularly threatened a VAT visit to people like Scooby Drew suggests :oops: :lol: :lol: :lol:

always figure someones attitude to vat and tax is similar to their customers. if they treat their customers like crap ie their source of income then they sure as hell wont be compliant on their tax.

Ill have a dig. Ash pm the exact details of the bikes and I'll issue a reference to the local office. :D

Re: Time to name and shame..... you have been warned !!
 

My apologies, I just seem to remember you mentioning this as a course of action in the past :D After all, it was how they caught ol' Al Capone...

Re: Time to name and shame..... you have been warned !!
 

think I suggested it once :lol: :lol: :lol:

but yeah, dont mess with the tax/VAT person :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Im not really sure whether this bloke needs mass negative publicity,

Isnt the chain part of the daily checks? The same checks that involve checking the oil, tyres and lights?

Probably not, but I look at things from the other end.

I have just been reading up on this as I was a bit shocked and it’s a bit of a grey area in my eyes. It would seem that as opposed to "fit for the purpose" it instead comes down to this rather vague phrase of "satisfactory quality".

Apparently this refers to "a condition which reflects its age and price" plus "reasonably reliable".

To be honest that sounds very vague to me. In my eyes though chain failure on a 7.5k machine is not unreasonable unless there are invoices to show that it recently had a new chain fitted or the dealer made such a statement. One could assume that the chain had been on there since new and if used all year round and no scottoiler is fitted then it could need replacing. No doubt that would be reflected in the price you negotiate on it though but then you have to prove who said what during the negotiations and whether the price reflected the condition. The dealer could say "well I pointed out to the gentleman that the chain and sprockets were worn so knocked £300 off the price". Sounds like a minefield to me.

Now if the chain was heavily worn this would be clearly visible to anyone looking at the bike due to how far the adjusters had been turned. I walked away from a used GPZ500 after the private seller told me that the chain was recent but the wheel was almost back as far as it would go!

I assume it wasn't noticeable (otherwise the original poster wouldn't have bought it) so it just sounds like a piece of bad luck that the chain failed due to some kind of flaw. Rather unlucky from the dealers point of view as clearly he had no way of knowing and with 500 miles on the clock since he sold it I guess he would wonder if the owner had done something silly like over tightened it etc - not saying the original poster had done this, I am just saying if you were a dealer that had just sold a bike with a legit looking chain what would you think?

This is one situation where I would have a bit of sympathy for the dealer but if you gotta pay you gotta pay and abusing your customers isn't going to help you win future business! Of course I have no idea how the dealer was spoken to during the heated discussion so I wouldn't want to get involved with making any libellous statements which is a danger with naming and shaming. Be careful gents, the internet provides no immunity!

only if the person is being investigated by the authorities and RIPA is complied with will you find yourself in a bit of bother.

but run a scenario that Ive libelled you. prove it. Ill deny it was me using my pc - my neighbours kid overheard a personal conversation and put it up on the forum without my knowledge/consent etc etc.... proof is very hard to get from the internet unless you have access to an expensive array of equipment and forensic software.

secondly its not libellous to state factual events ie bailiffs and court warrants are applied for. these will be matters of public record in the relevant courts as is... the fact that someones got to this point says everything without them having to say anything further.

thirdly to defend a libel claim or sue for slander/libel you have to prove whats been said is libellous/slander.

just glad the guys I bought my bike off kept to the warranty they give on all bikes. :D