dispute in less than a milimeter

diy

With regard to consumer law, as usual you are all wrong

I'ts covered by distance selling regulations. They are not "used", they are "installed". still entitled to a refund provided they are undamaged and returned.

Subject to the time limits its just a case of cancelling the order.

The DSRs give substantially better rights than the normal consumer rights, assuming it was a internet purchase.

supersonic

a refund provided they are undamaged and returned

This is the crux of the debate. The seller is saying they are damaged, or is at least implying this.

madmole

Which is why you use the the "unfit for purpose" bit of the cinsumer act, no conditions placed on the use or stat of the parts, and up until 6 months old the retailer just has to accept they are unfit. The onus is on him to PROVE they are not

bluechair84

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Forgive my curiosity, but why would you chose to buy Enduro seals, instead of getting them from Mojo, or TFtuned, for example?

Just testing out alternative products. Enduro are the brand as sold by some stores (I think you can get them from CRC). I didn't know that TF Tuned did seals but They are probably a similar thing, just an alternative. Mojo only sell the Fox manufactured seals.

update - Chris at RWC has emailed me the tolerances for the seals and despite the ones I had not being from the bad batch, might be way above tolerance. Mine were up to 46.6 on one measurement (varies depending on what angle you put the verniers). The tolerance is 46.35 +- 0.05

If they confirm that their measurement of 46.6ish is correct then this should be a done deal.

edit - mis typed the tolerance, is was +- 0.05mm. Soz Sonic

supersonic

46.35 + 0.5 = 46.85

So is in tolerance.

bluechair84

nicklouse wrote:

getonyourbike wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Real world cycling help design the seals for Fox?
Now I'm confused.

No, RWC help design the seals for Enduro

RWC and Enduro are the same company.

I posed this question to RWC as they have email domains for Enduro - he has said that RWC is not Enduro. Getonyourbike is correct. Enduro manufacter an aftermarket product.

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Seing as you're imminently going to the Alps, can;t you order some quick form Mojo or TF?

I forsaw these issues so I ordered some Fox seals from Mojo - they fitted like a dream :shock: The bike now has freshly serviced forks and both hubs with the BB to do too.

madmole wrote:

Which is why you use the the "unfit for purpose" bit of the cinsumer act

I'm hoping the tolerance measurement posted above proves this.

Finally, I'm waiting for a response from Fox as to whether the lowers ever had different size bores for the seals, which Mojo has denied, not that it should be relevant now. Looks like they may have another bad batch. Fingers crossed for the refund.

bluechair84

supersonic wrote:

46.35 + 0.5 = 46.85

So is in tolerance.

Sorry, edited the original post - 0.05mm

supersonic

Thought it was a huge tolerance ;-)

diy

The DSR specifically allow the consumer an unconditional right to cancel it is vastly stronger than the sale of goods act 1979.

Sonic - The retailer cannot refuse to refund on the basis that the goods have been opened, tested, installed etc. Even if they have been damaged as a result of the install, the consumer is only under an obligation to take reasonable care. The retailer still has to refund even if the consumer has not taken reasonable care. It is then up to the seller to bring a claim for these damages.

DSR really is the best place to start.

Madmole - you are mixing different rights under different sections of the SoGA, you don't have up to 6 months to reject goods under sec 13 "not as described". They are not faulty or poor quality (sec 14), they may not meet the description which is sec 13. but it would be based on the specific description.

madmole

They dont if they are not the right size. If they are the right size then agreed he has no cause to get a refund

diy

yes but its a straight forward contract claim at that point, so it would entirely depend on how the product was described (i.e. the detailed words).

The DSRs were specifically designed to stop retailers getting out of refunds by arguing that its the buyers job to make sure the product is correct according to the description.

Dirtydog11

diy wrote:

yes but its a straight forward contract claim at that point, so it would entirely depend on how the product was described (i.e. the detailed words).

The DSRs were specifically designed to stop retailers getting out of refunds by arguing that its the buyers job to make sure the product is correct according to the description.

If he bought them from where I think he did then the description says they fit all
Fox 36s

So from the description I would say not fit for purpose.

If it's who I think it is I've visited their shop and can't say I liked their approach, they seemed a bit slimey.

I was thinking about trying a set myself but after this palava.

nicklouse

Dirtydog11 wrote:

diy wrote:

yes but its a straight forward contract claim at that point, so it would entirely depend on how the product was described (i.e. the detailed words).

The DSRs were specifically designed to stop retailers getting out of refunds by arguing that its the buyers job to make sure the product is correct according to the description.

If he bought them from where I think he did then the description says they fit all
Fox 36s

So from the description I would say not fit for purpose.

If it's who I think it is I've visited their shop and can't say I liked their approach, they seemed a bit slimey.

I was thinking about trying a set myself but after this palava.

If he VISITED them then the DSR do not apply.

diy

Dirtydog11 wrote:

If he bought them from where I think he did then the description says they fit all
Fox 36s

So from the description I would say not as described.

Fixed for you

bluechair84

Just heard back from Fox who have confirmed that the internal bore never changed since inception of the 36. The bloke at the shop which I have never visited (and will be nameless until issue is resolved) was wrong to tell me that I may have had an older model in which the seals would not fit.

The Enduros may be good seals, but it's my guess that they have not solved the bad batch issues yet. The contact at the store is now away until next week and I'm in the Alps with my perfectly working Fox manufactered seals fitted snugly until end of July. The seals saga will be updated when more news comes in.

bluechair84

Well, after all this, BETD have given me a refund on the seals as 'customer service' though they still insist that the seals are fine. So thanks to BETD for that.
As for the seals, I wouldn't bother with Enduro again. The Fox ones fitted within two minutes, the Enduros didn't fit having tried for over two hours, and I'm fairly mechanically competant.

Oh, and the Alps trip was pretty cool 8)

diy

Enduro seals fit fine in my Rebas and seem to be better than the SRAM originals.

Anonymous

So, Fox > Enduro > SRAM ?

bluechair84

without being able to compare fox and sram seals in the same fork, we wouldn't know, it could be more like rock paper scissors; fox > enduro > sram > fox...

Anonymous

Ever heard of the phrase "tongue in cheek"?

bluechair84

Jesus you're off form today! How the hell could seals comparison possibly be cyclic like rock paper scissors! I was adding to the irony because your comment made me laugh. Have a beer mate.

Anonymous

Nah, you're just not as funny as you think.

diy

hmm, i'm gonna check mine again, because I'm pretty sure I bought them from tft, in which case they should have been genuine SRAM.