Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days

"Justin Lewis" wrote in message
...

"I ride more than you so I know more about law and I am more
qualified" is a fairly juvenile reaction, particularly when based upon
afoundation of nothing. You might as well argue that you can shout
louder so therefore you are right.

You're getting funnier by the moment. You were the first to pull out your
dick for the measuring:

"Nice to know that as a qualified lawyer I should bow to your superior
knowledge of Dutch law. Thanks."

Seeing that you got your law degree at a second string school in England,
and Ewoud is Dutch, I might expect him to know a far sight more about Dutch
law than you do.

Justin Lewis wrote:

Try addressing the substantive issues.

The only substantive issue I'm even vaguely interested in is this: why,
despite all evidence to the contrary, do you continue to think that we
care about your bike warranty problems? Thinking so is evidence of a deep
cognitive defect. Perhaps if you stamp your little feet and threaten to
hold your breath until you turn blue you can change our minds. Or perhaps
not.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:29:33 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:18:30 +0200, Justin Lewis wrote:
Any other irrelevant and inaccurate remarks?

Hey asshole, it was a sincere question. I was simply curious as I saw
some results with you riding for the club from Delft, and one cannot
study law there. We're all out to get you, eh?
Would a capital A not be more appropriate? It is after all a proper
noun!

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:28:02 +0200, Justin Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:29:33 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
Hey asshole

Would a capital A not be more appropriate?

It probably would.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:02:08 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:

Justin Lewis wrote:

Try addressing the substantive issues.

The only substantive issue I'm even vaguely interested in is this: why,
despite all evidence to the contrary, do you continue to think that we
care about your bike warranty problems? Thinking so is evidence of a deep
cognitive defect. Perhaps if you stamp your little feet and threaten to
hold your breath until you turn blue you can change our minds. Or perhaps
not.


I could stamp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue but
implicit in my so doing would be my agreement with the assumption that
you have a mind.

"Justin Lewis" wrote in message

Nice to know that as a qualified lawyer I should bow to your superior
knowledge of Dutch law. Thanks.

Why would a qualified lawyer feel the need to express and defend himself on Dutch law in
this non-legal, predominately non Dutch forum?

You have yet to find a single reply supporting your opinion.

If Dutch law is on your side, then take it to court there.

Please, let your next post on this subject be one with a link to the findings of the
court.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:40:39 -0500, "Carl Sundquist"
wrote:


"Justin Lewis" wrote in message

Nice to know that as a qualified lawyer I should bow to your superior
knowledge of Dutch law. Thanks.

Why would a qualified lawyer feel the need to express and defend himself on Dutch law in
this non-legal, predominately non Dutch forum?

You have yet to find a single reply supporting your opinion.

If Dutch law is on your side, then take it to court there.

Please, let your next post on this subject be one with a link to the findings of the
court.


Do not have to: I already got half the money back in circumstances
under which most contributors would have just said: "Oh darn". I am
just surprised that you lot accept and eat such ****.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:49:33 GMT, "Kyle Legate"
wrote:


"Justin Lewis" wrote in message
.. .

As I stated in this thread, my right to compensation does rest upon
the expired warranty but upon the non-excludable implied term that a
product should be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was sold
(including any special purpose made apparent by the consumer before
the sale took place). Why do you then insist upon referring to a
warranty?

Were you able to ride the bike? Mission accomplished.
I was advised not to ride the bike by the dealer: it was dangerous.

Bianchi's obligation is, in turn, to supply the dealer with a product
which meets the description as outlined above, particularly in the
case of a hidden defect of which the dealer could have no knowledge.

I'm sure many of the bikes sold by your dealer are able to be ridden during
the period covered by the warranty. If they suddenly cannot be ridden during
that time period then you recourse to compensation.

Could you at least attempt to answer this question? If a manufacturer
of a frame were to give a two day warranty and your frame were to
manifest a defect after three days, would you, using your analysis,
have any rights to replacement or compensation?

No, I would have no rights, since the frame is no longer covered.
It is a shame that you believe that: I would love to have clients as
naive as you:
Me: "I did teach you properly but my warranty only extends to the day
before the exam."

Student: "Oh, darn. Never mind, the warranty has expired so I will
just have to get over it"

However, I
would not be so stupid to buy a frame with a 2 day warranty. Nor, for that
matter, would I be stupid enough to buy a frame with a one year warranty.
Next time read the fine print. Is that clear enough for you?

Justin Lewis wrote:
"Robert Chung" wrote:

Justin Lewis wrote:

Try addressing the substantive issues.

The only substantive issue I'm even vaguely interested in is this: why,
despite all evidence to the contrary, do you continue to think that we
care about your bike warranty problems? Thinking so is evidence of a
deep cognitive defect. Perhaps if you stamp your little feet and
threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue you can change our
minds. Or perhaps not.


I could stamp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue but
implicit in my so doing would be my agreement with the assumption that
you have a mind.

Excellent. This is progress. Since we lack minds, trying to convince us of
your tort is futile. I am perfectly willing to have you think us witless
if you will just go away. I'm sure if you look you'll be able to find
someone who will listen to your tantrum. Have you tried your mother?
Perhaps she can provide the affirmation you seek. It is evident you will
not find it here.

"Justin Lewis" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:40:39 -0500, "Carl Sundquist"
wrote:


"Justin Lewis" wrote in message

Nice to know that as a qualified lawyer I should bow to your superior
knowledge of Dutch law. Thanks.

Why would a qualified lawyer feel the need to express and defend himself on Dutch law
in
this non-legal, predominately non Dutch forum?

You have yet to find a single reply supporting your opinion.

If Dutch law is on your side, then take it to court there.

Please, let your next post on this subject be one with a link to the findings of the
court.


Do not have to: I already got half the money back in circumstances
under which most contributors would have just said: "Oh darn". I am
just surprised that you lot accept and eat such ****.

You did not answer my question: "Why would a qualified lawyer feel the need to express and
defend himself on Dutch law in
this non-legal, predominately non Dutch forum?"