Bike reviews

kevk

When reviewers get a new steed to test, as part of the the process maybe the terms of the warranty should also be evaluated. I am sure a lot of weight is given to the expert opinions of the reviewers, indeed I'm sure a lot of equipment is purchased on the strength of such reviews.
An example is the warranty provided by Focus cycles distrubuted by Wriggle. These cycles have received glowing reports in cycling plus and triathlon magazines, but how many users are aware that using the bike in any form of competition invalidates the warranty. Something to bear in mind when considering a purchase and making comparisons.

antooony

Well Ive got a Focus and Im going to be using it for competitions this year. If it breaks while Im competiing I shall just have to be a bit vague with the truth and claim it broke when I was popping to my local shop to pick up some worthers originals for my grandad.

PhilofCas

so they're saying you cannot use their bikes to ride as fast as you can ??? strange warranty, sounds a load of sh*te to me, like antooony says, that ruling will just not be enforceable, surely ?

Nuggs

PhilofCas wrote:

so they're saying you cannot use their bikes to ride as fast as you can ??? strange warranty, sounds a load of sh*te to me, like antooony says, that ruling will just not be enforceable, surely ?

IIRC the Spesh warranties are worded in the same way.

A manufacturer is not obliged to give a warranty. It will be used as part of the marketing of the product. A 10 year warranty looks impressive, but one should always check the small print; within reason a manufacturer can put whatever conditions it sees fit. Those conditions may be subject to challenge under certain legislation (e.g. Unfair Contract Terms Act), however, as a warranty is an 'added bonus', I wouldn't expect the courts to intervene in any particular degree.

We should remember however, that manufacturers' warranties do not displace statutory rights (most notably the Sale of Goods Act). Even if the warranty's poor, the manufacturer must still meet its obligations under SoGA.

The best way to police and influence the way a manufacturer administers its warrantioes in practice, is for members of the online bike community to post up their experiences (good and bad). I suspect replacing a £1,000 frame is well worth the good publicity/avoidance of bad publicity for the manufacturer.

pliptrot

Surely this is an issue of "fit for purpose" under the sale of goods legislation. The bikes mentioned are sold as "racing" bikes, and -as such- must be capable of being raced? To wangle out of that one is like selling a kettle with the instructions " the use of water in this device will invalidate the warranty".

PhilofCas

Yep, their website states 'race', 'race ready', 'race bred' etc, so you're using one their 'race ready' bikes in a race and somethings lets go, "I'm sorry sir, your brand new 'race ready' bike is not covered under warranty because you were using it in a race". Christ, pull the other one.

Nuggs

pliptrot wrote:

Surely this is an issue of "fit for purpose" under the sale of goods legislation. The bikes mentioned are sold as "racing" bikes, and -as such- must be capable of being raced? To wangle out of that one is like selling a kettle with the instructions " the use of water in this device will invalidate the warranty".

That's what I'm saying: you would most likely have a stronger claim under the Sale of Goods Act (although I'd go down the satisfactory quality route rather than fitness for purpose). The Warranty cannot displace the rights afforded to you under legislation.

However, SoGA will only protect you for so long. If something goes snap in year 3, then the chances of a successful action would be far lower than if something went after day 3. In those circumstances, I'd start reading the warranty very carefully...