M
Mike Causer
Guest
Article on the current Wal-mart QR case here:
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6452
Mike
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6452
Mike
B
Bronzie
Guest
My experience of bikes purchased from Wal-Mart is that they make
H*lf*rds look like the best bike shop in the world. My wife's parents
have a place in Florida and decided to buy a pair of matching his 'n'
hers bikes to pootle round the golf course on.
As you can imagine, expense was never in question .......... seeing as
how the dearest bike on sale was $100. So they got these two
monstrosities home ......... and then wondered why they couldn't stop
very well (lucky Florida is flat). I had a look at the V-brakes, which
had been set up by the clueless staff to operate on the tyre, not the
rim. Suffice to say, I adjusted the brakes and helpfully pointed out
that you get what you pay for (both in terms of product and staff).
I was however still amazed that in a claim happy culture like the US
that Wallies would let bikes leave the shop in this state.
Bronzie
H*lf*rds look like the best bike shop in the world. My wife's parents
have a place in Florida and decided to buy a pair of matching his 'n'
hers bikes to pootle round the golf course on.
As you can imagine, expense was never in question .......... seeing as
how the dearest bike on sale was $100. So they got these two
monstrosities home ......... and then wondered why they couldn't stop
very well (lucky Florida is flat). I had a look at the V-brakes, which
had been set up by the clueless staff to operate on the tyre, not the
rim. Suffice to say, I adjusted the brakes and helpfully pointed out
that you get what you pay for (both in terms of product and staff).
I was however still amazed that in a claim happy culture like the US
that Wallies would let bikes leave the shop in this state.
Bronzie
S
Steve Peake
Guest
On 7 Feb 2006 05:12:56 -0800, Bronzie wrote:
> I was however still amazed that in a claim happy culture like the US
> that Wallies would let bikes leave the shop in this state.
I'm sure they have done the numbers, and found its cheaper to kill a few
people rather than train the staff.
Steve
> I was however still amazed that in a claim happy culture like the US
> that Wallies would let bikes leave the shop in this state.
I'm sure they have done the numbers, and found its cheaper to kill a few
people rather than train the staff.
Steve
T
Tony Raven
Guest
Mike Causer wrote:
> Article on the current Wal-mart QR case here:
>
> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6452
>
Now updated with Friday's jury decision in favour of Walmart
http://bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6464
"Friday 10th February 2006
US jury finds for Wal-mart and Dynacraft in QR suit
Kid faceplants were due to rider- and parent-error, not faulty quick
release mechanisms, said the 12 jurors in an eight-week Marin Country
trial that, had it gone the other way, could have sent shock waves
through the global bike industry, similar to the 'lawyers' lips' panic
of the mid-1990s."
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
> Article on the current Wal-mart QR case here:
>
> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6452
>
Now updated with Friday's jury decision in favour of Walmart
http://bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6464
"Friday 10th February 2006
US jury finds for Wal-mart and Dynacraft in QR suit
Kid faceplants were due to rider- and parent-error, not faulty quick
release mechanisms, said the 12 jurors in an eight-week Marin Country
trial that, had it gone the other way, could have sent shock waves
through the global bike industry, similar to the 'lawyers' lips' panic
of the mid-1990s."
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
T
Tony Raven
Guest
Steve Peake wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006 05:12:56 -0800, Bronzie wrote:
>
>> I was however still amazed that in a claim happy culture like the US
>> that Wallies would let bikes leave the shop in this state.
>
> I'm sure they have done the numbers, and found its cheaper to kill a few
> people rather than train the staff.
>
The jury seems to disagree with you and placed the blame on the parents
and their children.
http://bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6464
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
> On 7 Feb 2006 05:12:56 -0800, Bronzie wrote:
>
>> I was however still amazed that in a claim happy culture like the US
>> that Wallies would let bikes leave the shop in this state.
>
> I'm sure they have done the numbers, and found its cheaper to kill a few
> people rather than train the staff.
>
The jury seems to disagree with you and placed the blame on the parents
and their children.
http://bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6464
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
I
Ian Smith
Guest
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:52:59 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve Peake wrote:
> > On 7 Feb 2006 05:12:56 -0800, Bronzie wrote:
> >
> >> I was however still amazed that in a claim happy culture like the US
> >> that Wallies would let bikes leave the shop in this state.
> >
> > I'm sure they have done the numbers, and found its cheaper to kill a few
> > people rather than train the staff.
>
> The jury seems to disagree with you and placed the blame on the parents
> and their children.
> http://bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6464
Eh? Bronzie's complaint was about bikes sold with teh brakes arranged
such that the blocks act on teh tyre, rather than the rim.
You seem to be implying that Wal-mart are in teh right. Are you
really of teh opinion that's how brakes should be set up? Do you set
up your own brakes to grab teh tyre? I guess it will reduce rim wear.
The case you cite seems to have little relevance to this, save that it
confirms exactly what Steve Peake said - it's cheaper to kill a few
people, since the courts will decide teh safety of a bike is entirely
down to teh parents reading manuals that were not supplied with teh
bikes. That being teh case, why do you disagree?
You think that not training staff is more expensive than paying
no compensation?
Perhaps you can elaborate.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
> Steve Peake wrote:
> > On 7 Feb 2006 05:12:56 -0800, Bronzie wrote:
> >
> >> I was however still amazed that in a claim happy culture like the US
> >> that Wallies would let bikes leave the shop in this state.
> >
> > I'm sure they have done the numbers, and found its cheaper to kill a few
> > people rather than train the staff.
>
> The jury seems to disagree with you and placed the blame on the parents
> and their children.
> http://bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6464
Eh? Bronzie's complaint was about bikes sold with teh brakes arranged
such that the blocks act on teh tyre, rather than the rim.
You seem to be implying that Wal-mart are in teh right. Are you
really of teh opinion that's how brakes should be set up? Do you set
up your own brakes to grab teh tyre? I guess it will reduce rim wear.
The case you cite seems to have little relevance to this, save that it
confirms exactly what Steve Peake said - it's cheaper to kill a few
people, since the courts will decide teh safety of a bike is entirely
down to teh parents reading manuals that were not supplied with teh
bikes. That being teh case, why do you disagree?
You think that not training staff is more expensive than paying
no compensation?
Perhaps you can elaborate.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
T
Tony Raven
Guest
Ian Smith wrote:
>
> Perhaps you can elaborate.
>
Confusion between the subject line and the drifted thread ;-)
--
Tony
‘I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore and
diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier
shell than ordinary’
- Isaac Newton
>
> Perhaps you can elaborate.
>
Confusion between the subject line and the drifted thread ;-)
--
Tony
‘I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore and
diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier
shell than ordinary’
- Isaac Newton
A
Alex Potter
Guest
Tony Raven wrote on Saturday 11 Feb 2006 11:50:
> Mike Causer wrote:
>> Article on the current Wal-mart QR case here:
>>
>> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6452
>>
>
> Now updated with Friday's jury decision in favour of Walmart
> http://bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6464
>
> "Friday 10th February 2006
> US jury finds for Wal-mart and Dynacraft in QR suit
> Kid faceplants were due to rider- and parent-error, not faulty quick
> release mechanisms, said the 12 jurors in an eight-week Marin Country
> trial that, had it gone the other way, could have sent shock waves
> through the global bike industry, similar to the 'lawyers' lips' panic
> of the mid-1990s."
>
Common Sense, and from Left-Pondians too. I'm fair 'mazed
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid
> Mike Causer wrote:
>> Article on the current Wal-mart QR case here:
>>
>> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6452
>>
>
> Now updated with Friday's jury decision in favour of Walmart
> http://bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6464
>
> "Friday 10th February 2006
> US jury finds for Wal-mart and Dynacraft in QR suit
> Kid faceplants were due to rider- and parent-error, not faulty quick
> release mechanisms, said the 12 jurors in an eight-week Marin Country
> trial that, had it gone the other way, could have sent shock waves
> through the global bike industry, similar to the 'lawyers' lips' panic
> of the mid-1990s."
>
Common Sense, and from Left-Pondians too. I'm fair 'mazed
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid
I
Ian Smith
Guest
On Sat, 11 Feb, Alex Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Common Sense, and from Left-Pondians too. I'm fair 'mazed
I'm not so sure. The summary posted seems reasonable, but some of the
detail of the verdict is more questionable, in my opinion.
In particular, this verdict says that if you go to a shop which has a
department specialising in a particular class of items (bicycles, in
this case), and purchase one such item, and the shop's staff set up
the item and provide it 'ready-to-go', and do not provide any guidance
or instructions or training or safety warnings and you take it and go,
it's your fault if it's actually hazardous and you are injured.
It's your fault because you didn't ask for the instruction manual you
didn't know existed, and wasn't offered to you. It's your fault
because you didn't check every aspect of the job done by the
specialist staff, and didn't ask for the training you didn't know was
necessary.
Is this really common sense? The buyer is assumed to be more expert
than the person in the shop supposedly specialising in it? Do you
really think it's a good idea that the law assumes any buyer knows
more than the shop from which they buy?
Doesn't look like common sense to me.
Looks like a licence to abdicate responsibility on the part of
flog-it-cheap-and-stuff-the-customers big business. But obviously,
you disagree.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
> Common Sense, and from Left-Pondians too. I'm fair 'mazed
I'm not so sure. The summary posted seems reasonable, but some of the
detail of the verdict is more questionable, in my opinion.
In particular, this verdict says that if you go to a shop which has a
department specialising in a particular class of items (bicycles, in
this case), and purchase one such item, and the shop's staff set up
the item and provide it 'ready-to-go', and do not provide any guidance
or instructions or training or safety warnings and you take it and go,
it's your fault if it's actually hazardous and you are injured.
It's your fault because you didn't ask for the instruction manual you
didn't know existed, and wasn't offered to you. It's your fault
because you didn't check every aspect of the job done by the
specialist staff, and didn't ask for the training you didn't know was
necessary.
Is this really common sense? The buyer is assumed to be more expert
than the person in the shop supposedly specialising in it? Do you
really think it's a good idea that the law assumes any buyer knows
more than the shop from which they buy?
Doesn't look like common sense to me.
Looks like a licence to abdicate responsibility on the part of
flog-it-cheap-and-stuff-the-customers big business. But obviously,
you disagree.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
A
Alex Potter
Guest
Ian Smith wrote on Sunday 12 Feb 2006 14:57:
> On Sat, 11 Feb, Alex Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Common Sense, and from Left-Pondians too. I'm fair 'mazed
>
> I'm not so sure. The summary posted seems reasonable, but some of the
> detail of the verdict is more questionable, in my opinion.
>
> In particular, this verdict says that if you go to a shop which has a
> department specialising in a particular class of items (bicycles, in
> this case), and purchase one such item, and the shop's staff set up
> the item and provide it 'ready-to-go', and do not provide any guidance
> or instructions or training or safety warnings and you take it and go,
> it's your fault if it's actually hazardous and you are injured.
If you want to buy a bike from such a place, I say "on your own head be
it".
> It's your fault because you didn't ask for the instruction manual you
> didn't know existed, and wasn't offered to you. It's your fault
> because you didn't check every aspect of the job done by the
> specialist staff, and didn't ask for the training you didn't know was
> necessary.
According to the denizens of r.b.m there are no specialist staff in such
places, or, if you find one, you've found the needle in the haystack.
If you want bike specialists, go to the LBS. Otherwise, be prepared at
least to check correct operation of the brakes and steering, tyre
pressures and the tightness all fastenings. If you don't have that
knowledge, buy from someone that does, or get a knowledgable friend to
make the checks for you.
> Is this really common sense? The buyer is assumed to be more expert
> than the person in the shop supposedly specialising in it? Do you
> really think it's a good idea that the law assumes any buyer knows
> more than the shop from which they buy?
I don't think it's the business of the law. People must assume
responsibility for their own decisions, including their bad ones.
> Doesn't look like common sense to me.
> Looks like a licence to abdicate responsibility on the part of
> flog-it-cheap-and-stuff-the-customers big business. But obviously,
> you disagree.
> regards, Ian SMith
While you make what many would consider to be valid points, ISTM that we
now live in a society where consumerism has gone mad. Whatever happened
to "caveat emptor"?
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid
> On Sat, 11 Feb, Alex Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Common Sense, and from Left-Pondians too. I'm fair 'mazed
>
> I'm not so sure. The summary posted seems reasonable, but some of the
> detail of the verdict is more questionable, in my opinion.
>
> In particular, this verdict says that if you go to a shop which has a
> department specialising in a particular class of items (bicycles, in
> this case), and purchase one such item, and the shop's staff set up
> the item and provide it 'ready-to-go', and do not provide any guidance
> or instructions or training or safety warnings and you take it and go,
> it's your fault if it's actually hazardous and you are injured.
If you want to buy a bike from such a place, I say "on your own head be
it".
> It's your fault because you didn't ask for the instruction manual you
> didn't know existed, and wasn't offered to you. It's your fault
> because you didn't check every aspect of the job done by the
> specialist staff, and didn't ask for the training you didn't know was
> necessary.
According to the denizens of r.b.m there are no specialist staff in such
places, or, if you find one, you've found the needle in the haystack.
If you want bike specialists, go to the LBS. Otherwise, be prepared at
least to check correct operation of the brakes and steering, tyre
pressures and the tightness all fastenings. If you don't have that
knowledge, buy from someone that does, or get a knowledgable friend to
make the checks for you.
> Is this really common sense? The buyer is assumed to be more expert
> than the person in the shop supposedly specialising in it? Do you
> really think it's a good idea that the law assumes any buyer knows
> more than the shop from which they buy?
I don't think it's the business of the law. People must assume
responsibility for their own decisions, including their bad ones.
> Doesn't look like common sense to me.
> Looks like a licence to abdicate responsibility on the part of
> flog-it-cheap-and-stuff-the-customers big business. But obviously,
> you disagree.
> regards, Ian SMith
While you make what many would consider to be valid points, ISTM that we
now live in a society where consumerism has gone mad. Whatever happened
to "caveat emptor"?
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid
M
Mark Thompson
Guest
> Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?
Statutory rights? I've really no wish to be lumbered with goods that don't
work, aren't fit for purpose, are actively dangerous etc.
Statutory rights? I've really no wish to be lumbered with goods that don't
work, aren't fit for purpose, are actively dangerous etc.
Mike Causer said:
I'm so glad they lost that case. These parents will be idiots with thick children who go around blaming everyone else for their own inadequacies.
Parts dont just suddenly fail on bikes failure happens over a period of time. Pedals, QRs and whatever else will loosen over time. If you are so mechanically inept that you fail to spot the impending accident as a result then you either should realise that you deserve a bit of pain or shouldn't ride a bicycle.
R
Richard
Guest
MichaelB wrote:
> Parts dont just suddenly fail on bikes failure happens over a period of
> time. Pedals, QRs and whatever else will loosen over time. If you are
> so mechanically inept that you fail to spot the impending accident as a
> result then you either should realise that you deserve a bit of pain or
> shouldn't ride a bicycle.
That's a little harsh. It's entirely possible to have a catastrophic
failure that's only possible to detect by strip-down and dye penetration
testing, but we don't normally strip down our bikes before every ride.
Case in point; my seatpost fractured a while back; the slowly
propagating crack was hidden under a tail light mount, and I was saved
from the embarrassment of having my testicles ripped off by it failing
slowly when I went over a small unexpected bump and me being in a
position to shift my weight onto the pedals as I felt the saddle fold
back. From an inspection of the seatpost, it looked like the original
crack had been propagating slowly for some time before it suddenly went.
I'm sure some of the carbon-fibre folk have worse horror stories.
R.
> Parts dont just suddenly fail on bikes failure happens over a period of
> time. Pedals, QRs and whatever else will loosen over time. If you are
> so mechanically inept that you fail to spot the impending accident as a
> result then you either should realise that you deserve a bit of pain or
> shouldn't ride a bicycle.
That's a little harsh. It's entirely possible to have a catastrophic
failure that's only possible to detect by strip-down and dye penetration
testing, but we don't normally strip down our bikes before every ride.
Case in point; my seatpost fractured a while back; the slowly
propagating crack was hidden under a tail light mount, and I was saved
from the embarrassment of having my testicles ripped off by it failing
slowly when I went over a small unexpected bump and me being in a
position to shift my weight onto the pedals as I felt the saddle fold
back. From an inspection of the seatpost, it looked like the original
crack had been propagating slowly for some time before it suddenly went.
I'm sure some of the carbon-fibre folk have worse horror stories.
R.
I
Ian Smith
Guest
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:06:03 GMT, Alex Potter <> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote on Sunday 12 Feb 2006 14:57:
> > On Sat, 11 Feb, Alex Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Common Sense, and from Left-Pondians too. I'm fair 'mazed
> >
> > I'm not so sure. The summary posted seems reasonable, but some of the
> > detail of the verdict is more questionable, in my opinion.
> >
> > In particular, this verdict says that if you go to a shop which has a
> > department specialising in a particular class of items (bicycles, in
> > this case), and purchase one such item, and the shop's staff set up
> > the item and provide it 'ready-to-go', and do not provide any guidance
> > or instructions or training or safety warnings and you take it and go,
> > it's your fault if it's actually hazardous and you are injured.
>
> If you want to buy a bike from such a place, I say "on your own head be
> it".
It's a shop that is maintaining that it is competent to sell bikes.
You really do seem to be saying that any purchaser of any item must be
more expert than the shop selling the goods, and if they aren't, well
tough. That seems crazy to me - and the death-knell for bike shops
with any actual knowledge.
> If you want bike specialists, go to the LBS. Otherwise,
No, there is no otherwise. The verdict doesn't say this only applies
to rubbish shops - it makes no distinction regarding the quality of
shop, so far as I am aware. This is another blow for specialist bike
shops - because the court has said that actually, yes it's fine to
pretend to be a bike shop even if you don't have staff capable of
setting up bikes - you can sell a death-trap, and not be held
responsible.
So as bike-shop owner you have a choice between hiring a cheap idiot
who knows nothing about bikes, or a genuinely knowledgeable person,
who's a bit more expensive. The court has just said it doesn't matter
who you hire - you won't be responsible for their action (or
inaction).
> > Is this really common sense? The buyer is assumed to be more expert
> > than the person in the shop supposedly specialising in it? Do you
> > really think it's a good idea that the law assumes any buyer knows
> > more than the shop from which they buy?
>
> I don't think it's the business of the law. People must assume
> responsibility for their own decisions, including their bad ones.
No. If you consult an expert (or someone maintaining that they are
expert) you have a right to actually receive expert advice. It is
not reasonable to assume that every consumer knows more than every
seller. There is lots of law that says you must not claim
capabilities you do not have - it's generally considered at least
fraud to do so. In cases where H&S is involved it is normally taken
rather more seriously, but now apparently not for bikes.
The really crazy thing in this verdict is the finding that the
customers should have asked for the instruction manual they did not
know existed, did not know ought to exist, and were not offered. The
bike shop knew it existed and knew it should have been given to the
customer but apparently bear no responsibility for not having done so.
> > Looks like a licence to abdicate responsibility on the part of
> > flog-it-cheap-and-stuff-the-customers big business. But obviously,
> > you disagree.
>
> While you make what many would consider to be valid points, ISTM that we
> now live in a society where consumerism has gone mad. Whatever happened
> to "caveat emptor"?
Caveat emptor should not allow the seller to endanger the purchaser -
if the seller knows something that materially affects the safety of
the purchaser they should have a duty to communicate that information.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
> Ian Smith wrote on Sunday 12 Feb 2006 14:57:
> > On Sat, 11 Feb, Alex Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Common Sense, and from Left-Pondians too. I'm fair 'mazed
> >
> > I'm not so sure. The summary posted seems reasonable, but some of the
> > detail of the verdict is more questionable, in my opinion.
> >
> > In particular, this verdict says that if you go to a shop which has a
> > department specialising in a particular class of items (bicycles, in
> > this case), and purchase one such item, and the shop's staff set up
> > the item and provide it 'ready-to-go', and do not provide any guidance
> > or instructions or training or safety warnings and you take it and go,
> > it's your fault if it's actually hazardous and you are injured.
>
> If you want to buy a bike from such a place, I say "on your own head be
> it".
It's a shop that is maintaining that it is competent to sell bikes.
You really do seem to be saying that any purchaser of any item must be
more expert than the shop selling the goods, and if they aren't, well
tough. That seems crazy to me - and the death-knell for bike shops
with any actual knowledge.
> If you want bike specialists, go to the LBS. Otherwise,
No, there is no otherwise. The verdict doesn't say this only applies
to rubbish shops - it makes no distinction regarding the quality of
shop, so far as I am aware. This is another blow for specialist bike
shops - because the court has said that actually, yes it's fine to
pretend to be a bike shop even if you don't have staff capable of
setting up bikes - you can sell a death-trap, and not be held
responsible.
So as bike-shop owner you have a choice between hiring a cheap idiot
who knows nothing about bikes, or a genuinely knowledgeable person,
who's a bit more expensive. The court has just said it doesn't matter
who you hire - you won't be responsible for their action (or
inaction).
> > Is this really common sense? The buyer is assumed to be more expert
> > than the person in the shop supposedly specialising in it? Do you
> > really think it's a good idea that the law assumes any buyer knows
> > more than the shop from which they buy?
>
> I don't think it's the business of the law. People must assume
> responsibility for their own decisions, including their bad ones.
No. If you consult an expert (or someone maintaining that they are
expert) you have a right to actually receive expert advice. It is
not reasonable to assume that every consumer knows more than every
seller. There is lots of law that says you must not claim
capabilities you do not have - it's generally considered at least
fraud to do so. In cases where H&S is involved it is normally taken
rather more seriously, but now apparently not for bikes.
The really crazy thing in this verdict is the finding that the
customers should have asked for the instruction manual they did not
know existed, did not know ought to exist, and were not offered. The
bike shop knew it existed and knew it should have been given to the
customer but apparently bear no responsibility for not having done so.
> > Looks like a licence to abdicate responsibility on the part of
> > flog-it-cheap-and-stuff-the-customers big business. But obviously,
> > you disagree.
>
> While you make what many would consider to be valid points, ISTM that we
> now live in a society where consumerism has gone mad. Whatever happened
> to "caveat emptor"?
Caveat emptor should not allow the seller to endanger the purchaser -
if the seller knows something that materially affects the safety of
the purchaser they should have a duty to communicate that information.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
I
Ian Smith
Guest
On Mon, 13 Feb, MichaelB <> wrote:
>
> I'm so glad they lost that case. These parents will be idiots with
> thick children who go around blaming everyone else for their own
> inadequacies.
At least some of the parents were held responsible for not asking for
an instruction manual they did not know existed. Is it really
reasonable to expect the consumer to know more than the shop about
what should have been provided.
> Parts dont just suddenly fail on bikes
Yes they do. I have had parts fail suddenly. Specifically, a couple
of chains, a derailleur, a number of spokes, a cable, and bearings. I
have also had a progressive failure that was not reasonably apparent
until it reached very near to failure.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
>
> I'm so glad they lost that case. These parents will be idiots with
> thick children who go around blaming everyone else for their own
> inadequacies.
At least some of the parents were held responsible for not asking for
an instruction manual they did not know existed. Is it really
reasonable to expect the consumer to know more than the shop about
what should have been provided.
> Parts dont just suddenly fail on bikes
Yes they do. I have had parts fail suddenly. Specifically, a couple
of chains, a derailleur, a number of spokes, a cable, and bearings. I
have also had a progressive failure that was not reasonably apparent
until it reached very near to failure.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
D
David Martin
Guest
Alex Potter wrote:
> > The really crazy thing in this verdict is the finding that the
> > customers should have asked for the instruction manual they did not
> > know existed, did not know ought to exist, and were not offered. The
> > bike shop knew it existed and knew it should have been given to the
> > customer but apparently bear no responsibility for not having done so.
>
> That *is* odd, I agree. But pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Under British law (which this wasn't) Walmart would have been hung out
to dry as providing the bike in an unfit state as a fully assembled
bike is illegal, as is providing a boxed bike for assembly at home
without the appropriate instructions to enable someone to safely
complete the task.
...d
> > The really crazy thing in this verdict is the finding that the
> > customers should have asked for the instruction manual they did not
> > know existed, did not know ought to exist, and were not offered. The
> > bike shop knew it existed and knew it should have been given to the
> > customer but apparently bear no responsibility for not having done so.
>
> That *is* odd, I agree. But pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Under British law (which this wasn't) Walmart would have been hung out
to dry as providing the bike in an unfit state as a fully assembled
bike is illegal, as is providing a boxed bike for assembly at home
without the appropriate instructions to enable someone to safely
complete the task.
...d
Similar threads
