Warranty claim, how does this work then...

Anonymous

Will Snow wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

but i tend to find cheap stuff is cheaply made.

and that is why you are a salesmans dream

i am every mans dream because i am so legendary.

Will Snow

sheepsteeth wrote:

i am every mans dream because i am so legendary.

What a terrifying thought

Will Snow

sheepsteeth wrote:

i am every mans dream because i am so legendary.

What a terrifying thought

Anonymous

i can only assume that the second time you had changed your mind and intended to write "what a legendary thought"

Will Snow

guh, since i doubled posted like a noob, i will give you that one

Anonymous

Northwind wrote:

But I have a feeling I'm being gently trolled

i am feeling abit troll-y

diy

Northwind wrote:

But both must be free of defects, low price doesn't discharge the seller of that responsibility.

correct, but the conversation had muddled on to claims that cheap means low quality and expensive means high quality. Which in law is not too far from the truth. But defects and quality are not the same thing as you know and have pointed out. Your points about others being confused are spot on.

If the purchase price is low, then the quality expectation should be low, that doesn't mean cheap = low quality but it does mean that expensive (from a legal point of view) has to be high quality.

Northwind wrote:

Riddle me this... if I'd bought it full price, like my mate did, would it be better quality than when I got it with 40% off? Would he be within his rights to want a perfect one whereas I'm being unreasonable?

If we ignore the fact that your issue was and appears to be accepted as, a defect and not a quality issue, then yes. It makes more sense if you remember that your contract is with the retailer not the manufacturer.

You can have two items built in the same factory for £50. one sells for £1000 the other for £300. The consumer buying at £1000 can have a greater expectation of quality than the other, because he can compare his purchase with others that are sold for £1000.

A court wont care (assuming they care at all) about differences between RRP and sale price, they care about how much money was spend and what reasonable expectation of quality they can expect given their high or low purchase price.

supersonic

175 is not particularly cheap for a alu HT frame! 275 certainly isn't. For that money you'd have every right to expect it to be free from defects. But all beside the way now, CRC have sorted it straight away, and Ragley compensated. Can't get better than that!

Northwind

Well.. CRC haven't put anything right yet, still waiting for their decision on the claim. Though in the meantime they've sold out of mediums so now they can't replace it regardless unless they can find one at the distributors. And everyone else is selling out too so unless it gets sorted quick I won't be able to replace it at all. So bit early for a victory march. Not that they've done anything wrong either, they just haven't sorted it yet (though it'd have been nice if they'd kept a frame aside for me, ah well)

Haven't taken Brant up on his gentlemanly offer btw as tbh, it's not his problem and it wouldn't be on IMO. I meant this thread more as a general conversation starter about the principles of warranty claims rather than a specific one but it was very cool of him.

Anonymous

im sorely disappointed to find out he is involved in the designing of the nukeproof mega. i was thinking of buying one. i tihk they look awesome but im not so sure now.