Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days

On 21 Sep 2003 20:49:04 GMT, EMOVE (Joshua Zlotlow)
wrote:

I got on to talking about law when it became apparent that I am in the
minority regards the knowledge that a manufacturer's legal obligations
to its consumers extends beyond the end of the guarantee.

I don't recall seeing you appropriately cite any applicable law that provides a
warranty period longer than that offered by the manufacturer.
There isn't any. There is however a non-excludable term regarding
fitness for purpose and merchantability.
A manufacturer's
legal obligations in the U.S. extend beyond the length of the warranty, but
that's product liability law, which is a separate concept from the warranty.


I find it
remarkable that many of you accept such shoddy treatment from your
dealers which encourages their callous attitude.


People here aren't accepting of callous treatment from dealers at all. Unless
the dealer offers its own warranty in addition to the manufacturer's the dealer
is only obligated and should only be reasonably expected to act as the
intermediary between you and the manufacturer that offered the warranty itself.

Again this is just false. The contract of sale is with the retailer
and his liability to the customer includes the implied term referred
to above. His relationship with the manufacturer is irrelevant regards
his obligations to his consumer.

The dealer is out of pocket? Well he very often makes a large profit:
that is the risk of his profession.


Unless the dealer was just trying to get rid of you, it was foolish to give you
even a partial refund. Dealers really do not make the enormous profits that
you think they do. Frankly, if I were the dealer, I wouldn't do any more
business with you. Even by California standards, a place that many consider the
most litious place in the world, this is just plain old sour grapes.






Josh Zlotlow

Sacramento, California
Sacramento Golden Wheelmen
www.sacgw.com

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:28:35 GMT, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
what's "lui kont"?

Lazy ass.

"Justin Lewis" om wrote
in message


OK, asswipe, convince us that a judge, jury or mediator should be on your
side. You don't have an argument that has any value beyond what is known as
"nuisance". If you are a practicing lawyer, you should not be so proud that
you hassled the dealer out of $700. Show one bit of evidence that you are
correct rather than worthy of paying off to go away.

"Justin Lewis" om wrote
in message

Again this is just false. The contract of sale is with the retailer
and his liability to the customer includes the implied term referred
to above. His relationship with the manufacturer is irrelevant regards
his obligations to his consumer.


This is the salient point that has you at odds with literally everyone that
has discussed this issue with you on this NG:

According to you, all manufacturers are obligated to provide warranties for
the duration of a "typical" life expectancy.

That is just not true.

The benefit to the consumer (of the current system) is that prices are lower
in exchange for carrying to risk of the product breaking after the warranty
expires. If you had your way, the governments would determine all warranty
lengths (or at least minimums), and prices of these products would go up
accordingly. I could think of worse things in the world to happen, but that
is just not accurate under the law of any government that I am aware.

Your lack of understanding of this issue is amusing. You could be a troll,
but my perception is that you are a self-righteous (possibly obese) attorney
that expects your law degree to enable you to bend the laws as you need to.
Well, you can't. You can sometimes create a nuisance that becomes an
incentive for the opposing party to pay off rather than go through the
expense of defending. Deep down, I think you know this and you are
attempting to create more value (via nuisance) by publishing derogatory
articles about your foe. I hope they read this including all replies to see
how the only impact you had was to get "Bianchi" a bit more industry "buzz".

Justin, your legal reasoning is very faulty. Not worth running down that
path in this forum. And no, I am not evading.

But by now, you may have noticed that no one likes you or agrees with you.
No one. Sounds bad. But don't go away mad. Just try to bring something
more related to bike racing than to consumerite hubris.

And next time you talk to the flies, think of their point of view. They get
by OK.

Bonne route.


"Justin Lewis" om a écrit
dans le message de
...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:44:46 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

Dumbass -


Have you noticed that no one is on your side? Please go away.


Thank you for your cooperation and have a nice day.

Given the quality of the contributions in this group, in particular
those from Kurgan, Nev, Nick and Runkle, one I only feel mitigated
that these people are not on my side. I find it quite charming that
Kurgan prefixes his postings with a quaint piece of self-knowledge.

That no one is on my side should make me think I am wrong. Flies are
not on my side when I suggest to them that eating **** and
regurgitating it over other people's food is unhygenic. Does this also
mean that this opinion is wrong?

"Nick Burns" wrote in message
m...

Your lack of understanding of this issue is amusing. You could be a troll,
but my perception is that you are a self-righteous (possibly obese)
attorney
that expects your law degree to enable you to bend the laws as you need
to.

Several possibilities:

a-- He's a law student acting like a typical law student (US variety). That
is to say, he's an asshole acting like an asshole.
b-- He's a recent law school graduate who's only job offers were from sleazy
PI firms offering to pay him $15,000 per year and "teach him how to practice
law."
c-- He's an associate at a firm, has busted his butt, licked partner shoes
and sniffed partner butt, but still didn't make partner. This is displaced
anger.
d-- None of the above. He's just the typical bike shop pain in the arse
customer with a modest trust fund to keep him miserable.

"Nick Burns" a écrit dans le message
m...

"Justin Lewis" om wrote
in message

Again this is just false. The contract of sale is with the retailer
and his liability to the customer includes the implied term referred
to above. His relationship with the manufacturer is irrelevant regards
his obligations to his consumer.


This is the salient point that has you at odds with literally everyone
that
has discussed this issue with you on this NG:

According to you, all manufacturers are obligated to provide warranties
for
the duration of a "typical" life expectancy.

I am SOOOO uncomfortable in taking Justin' side, but here, he's a little
right. Just because the store did not manufacture the frame does not mean
that the seller skips out on legal responsibility. Just like Bianchi would
not squeeze out if the bike's other equipment was faulty. There are long
chains of responsibility, but most enterprises charge a percentage of their
revenues and handle malfunction claims. And they have insurance for real
big messes. You can look at insurance as the magnified risk assessment of
failure, on a larger scale, yet in fewer cases.

There are also nuances of EC consumer law that will give Justin more room to
complain, and maybe have his rewards, even when an express warranty says
otherwise. In Europe, though, the typical scope of relief does not come to
the level of that famous lady who spilled hot coffee on herself. But hard
racing is what Justin expected to do with the frame, and that seems what
Bianchi advertised. Like having a 300 kph speedometer in car. Just because
you go faster than legal doesn't mean that when something breaks at high
speed, there is no recourse.

The benefit to the consumer (of the current system) is that prices are
lower
in exchange for carrying to risk of the product breaking after the warrant
y
expires.

Well, the manufacturer has to reserve the right amount of profit against
claims, no ? And when things break, they don't usually do so (on a bike) in
a pleasant way.

If you had your way, the governments would determine all warranty
lengths (or at least minimums), and prices of these products would go up
accordingly. I could think of worse things in the world to happen, but
that
is just not accurate under the law of any government that I am aware.

You'd be surprised - in France, a severe malfunction of a consumer product
is a direct path to criminal charges, under appropriate circumstances.

But what Justin *did* bring to our attention is the big change from lifetime
warranty policies to very short periods. What happened ? Mention any good
framebuilder, and you'll see, right here, someone who thinks the very worst.

Wish I had a warranty for my legs. This time of year (70 kph winds today),
they are the first to break down.

Bonne route.

a-- He's a law student acting like a typical law student (US variety). That
is to say, he's an asshole acting like an asshole.

Oh you get those over on this side of the pond too ;-)

b-- He's a recent law school graduate who's only job offers were from sleazy
PI firms offering to pay him $15,000 per year and "teach him how to practice
law."

Sounds about the same as this side of the pond too - but in £, not in $ ;-)

c-- He's an associate at a firm, has busted his butt, licked partner shoes
and sniffed partner butt, but still didn't make partner. This is displaced
anger.

You know the same firm of lawyers as I do? ;-)

d-- None of the above. He's just the typical bike shop pain in the arse
customer with a modest trust fund to keep him miserable.

Prob got those over here too...

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h*$el***$$n*$d$ot$**s**i$$m*$m$**on**$s$@*$$a**$*o l*$*.*$$c$om*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

"Justin Lewis" om wrote in message
That no one is on my side should make me think I am wrong. Flies are
not on my side when I suggest to them that eating **** and
regurgitating it over other people's food is unhygenic. Does this also
mean that this opinion is wrong?


That you admit to talking to **** eating flies is very enlightening.


P.S. It's probably not unhygienic for the flies.

"Justin Lewis" om wrote in
message ...
On 21 Sep 2003 20:49:04 GMT, EMOVE (Joshua Zlotlow)
wrote:

I got on to talking about law when it became apparent that I am in the
minority regards the knowledge that a manufacturer's legal obligations
to its consumers extends beyond the end of the guarantee.

I don't recall seeing you appropriately cite any applicable law that
provides a
warranty period longer than that offered by the manufacturer.
There isn't any. There is however a non-excludable term regarding
fitness for purpose and merchantability.
A manufacturer's
legal obligations in the U.S. extend beyond the length of the warranty,
but
that's product liability law, which is a separate concept from the
warranty.


I find it
remarkable that many of you accept such shoddy treatment from your
dealers which encourages their callous attitude.


People here aren't accepting of callous treatment from dealers at all.
Unless
the dealer offers its own warranty in addition to the manufacturer's the
dealer
is only obligated and should only be reasonably expected to act as the
intermediary between you and the manufacturer that offered the warranty
itself.

Again this is just false. The contract of sale is with the retailer
and his liability to the customer includes the implied term referred
to above. His relationship with the manufacturer is irrelevant regards
his obligations to his consumer.


snip


Zlotlow is a lawyer, in the US.