Guys tell me if I'm being an ********...

[Dave20046]

I don't think I'm seeing my money back on this cowl if he'd atleast give me a fiver that'd cover the cost of the paint but he won't coz he's a smug ****. Ah well I've got a hugger, and bellypan to spray too and my tank and back plastics to touch up so it's not going to be a huuuge inconvenience just infuriating.

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by Dave20046

His ain't a curvy thoguh might look a bit out of place on mine as they're quite sharp graphics. Ah well I'll see.

goes off to find a pic of Suzys **** end

[dizzyblonde]

got em in the recesses on the swingarm too on both bikes. Just gotta be bothered to get some silver ones off Paul for Dave for his backend

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Dave20046

So you agree it was misleading then just fancied being different?

misleading is not "not as described" it is not grounds for a refund, just disappointing. So not at all, I'm not doing it to be awkward

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Dave20046

if he'd atleast give me a fiver that'd cover the cost of the paint but he won't coz he's a smug ****..

I thought he offered you about £20 partial refund? has he changed his mind on that?

Originally Posted by Stu

I thought he offered you about £20 partial refund? has he changed his mind on that?

I think he offered £36

Sounds like a bit of a d!ick to be honest... If he was willing to give £36, why wouldn't he even give a fiver back for the paint?

Bleh

[Stu]

Originally Posted by joshmac

I think he offered £36

Sounds like a bit of a d!ick to be honest... If he was willing to give £36, why wouldn't he even give a fiver back for the paint?

Bleh

Yeah I remember he offered full refund except postage if he returned it, but I thought he offered £20 for Dave to keep it. Maybe I'm getting confused with what Dave asked for.

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by Stu

Yeah I remember he offered full refund except postage if he returned it, but I thought he offered £20 for Dave to keep it. Maybe I'm getting confused with what Dave asked for.

No that's what I asked for he never offered it.

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by Stu

misleading is not "not as described" it is not grounds for a refund, just disappointing. So not at all, I'm not doing it to be awkward

Being badly resprayed is not as described. I'm sure most people would have assumed it had suzukis original paint on it unless otherwise stated. The guy also needs to look up 'blemish'.

Originally Posted by Stu

Completely irrelevant for a private transaction such as this.

I stand corrected, thanks for pointing it out. You are quite right,
"2.18 Sales by private individuals not acting for business purposes are not
covered by the DSRs." from: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...ral/oft698.pdf

Interestingly, a bit of digging reveals they seem to only apply to situations with a private buyer and a business seller (so not in business to business selling). There seems to be some controversy as to whether or not auctions sites are covered at all, even when it is a business seller. The govt's own guidance seems fairly conclusive that they are though, provided it's a "buy it now":

"...Fixed price sales, including ‘buy it now’ type transactions on internet auction sites, are covered by the DSRs because such sales are not concluded by auction." (from same source as the above)

I previously didn't realise this was ever disputed and in my experience the above seems to be correct: I successfully won a dispute on the grounds of it being in breach of a section of the distance selling act after a bit of a dispute with (German) company on ebay. After a bit of an argument about which country's distance selling regs applied of course! In that case, however, they were a business seller and it was a "buy it now" purchase, so it looks like the odds were as stacked in my favour as they could be in an ebay purchase.

Originally Posted by Dave20046

Being badly resprayed is not as described. I'm sure most people would have assumed it had suzukis original paint on it unless otherwise stated. The guy also needs to look up 'blemish'.

Nearly every definition seems to describe blemish as a slight defect, an imperfection or a minor mark. To me, in the context of paint, a "blemish" would suggest a small mark (a dent or chip or perhaps a small run in the paint), specific to a particular region. From your pictures it looks like most of the surface area is covered in a lattice of cracks! It's hard to see how the paint on your cowl could be any worse other than large amounts of bubbling or it literally falling off, revealing undercoat a different colour underneath. Again, it looks like an attempt to intentionally mislead on his part.