So you're honestly saying that you expect the mail order retailer to just send a new pair of forks to the customer without seeing the faulty ones TJ.
Bike Forum
Rock shox bubbling
-
Posted 4 months ago #
-
TandemJeremy - Member
No one else comes into it. the fork is faulty the shop is liabale to replace it.
Surely the point of the inspection is to establish if it's faulty?
Posted 4 months ago # -
steezysix - Member
Dunno where yo get that from
Government consumer rights website. I hope it's legit...
Misinterpretation I guess - thats the situation if it is not an inherent fault and / or if the customer is deemed to have accepted the goods.
Loco - its harder with a mail order company but the same applies that its their responsibility to sort it out without inconvenience to the customer.
Posted 4 months ago # -
I stand corrected, the customer does have the right choose repair or replacement.
Either way, the retailer has a reasonable time to repair/replace that does not cause the customer a significant inconvenience.
The question in my mind is what is at fault, the bike, the fork or the fork crown?
A moot point because without a trip to the courts the forks will be fixed by Fishers.
Sorry for the hijack.
Posted 4 months ago # -
The way I read it is that there is a paint defect on the crown of the Crown steerer unit or Uppers of the fork.
From experience the uppers would be replaced to retify the fault as it does not affect the rest of the forks function (internals and lowers)The crown steerer units would also have been most likely sprayed in a different batch to the lowers as well.
Posted 4 months ago # -
It's all well and good quoting various bits of legislation but back in the the real world it will be far quicker and easier for all if the forks go to Fishers. They fix them and get them back to the OP which I guarantee will be quicker than testing the Sale of Goods Act in a court. Embrace a system that works well enough for most people rather than fight it.
What some punters forget is that retailers and distributors have to protect themselves from the small percentage of the buying public that are at best chancers and at worst scammers.
There's a thread going at the moment with some one slagging off Wiggle because they are dragging their heels on a warranty replacement that he is not even entitled to as he is not the original owner.Posted 4 months ago # -
Matt, I wasn't going to mention that thread, but yes case in point.
I've seen alot of attempted scams in various forms over the years, hence spending the time to try and explain why things work in the way they do.
The legislation is there to protect customers in a worse case scenario I think as every retailer I've dealt with/worked for have been pretty good on faults generally.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Good grief what is all the agro?
It's a bit of bubbling paint. From experience Fishers are pretty damn good at sorting things out quickly so just get the forks back to them and get the CSU replaced.
Ask your bike shop if they have any spare forks they can fit for you to use if it's going to be more than a week.
Posted 4 months ago # -
looks like I have opened a can of worms
This is just the start of it. I would sue the retailer, Fishers, Rockshox and STW, who have facilitiated this discussion and are thus legally implicated in the issue, in the US Supreme Court. You should at the very least recover around $2-3 million in damages for distress caused by having to read TJ's endless gerbillings. As a best case outcome, you may be able to force Rockshox and SRAM into bankruptcy and cause their assets to be sold off to rectify the problem you're experiencing. Just saying.
But what do I know, Tandem Jeremy is, after all, a legal professional, isn't he?
Posted 4 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
