Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:55:52 GMT, "Kyle Legate"
wrote:


"Justin Lewis" om wrote
in message ...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:13:33 -0700, "Nick Burns"
wrote:


"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,

Who said i was practicing? I said I was qualified.

Failed the Bar exam, eh?

Interesting concept: one qualifies by failing! One must judge Kyle's
contributions to this group in their historical context:

Kyle: Were you able to ride the bike? Mission accomplished.

My reply: I was advised not to ride the bike by the dealer: it was
dangerous.

Kyle: You don't get it. Were you advised not to ride the bike the day
you bought it? If not, then then the "product should be reasonably fit
for the purpose for which it was sold" and it was.

This is a person who abuses other contributors for their stupidity and
lack of knowledge whilst applying a test of reasonableness for purpose
which is as follows:

In the absence of advice against using the product from the seller on
the day of purchase, the product must be deemed to have metthe implied
condition of fitness for purpose.

Well Kyle, what is it like to have your head so far up your arse you
can see your last braincell flickering on and off?

"Justin Lewis" om wrote in
message ...

Failed the Bar exam, eh?

Interesting concept: one qualifies by failing! One must judge Kyle's
contributions to this group in their historical context:

Kyle: Were you able to ride the bike? Mission accomplished.

My reply: I was advised not to ride the bike by the dealer: it was
dangerous.

Kyle: You don't get it. Were you advised not to ride the bike the day
you bought it? If not, then then the "product should be reasonably fit
for the purpose for which it was sold" and it was.

This is a person who abuses other contributors for their stupidity and
lack of knowledge whilst applying a test of reasonableness for purpose
which is as follows:

In the absence of advice against using the product from the seller on
the day of purchase, the product must be deemed to have metthe implied
condition of fitness for purpose.

Well Kyle, what is it like to have your head so far up your arse you
can see your last braincell flickering on and off?





You don't understand do you? We like Bianchi. Jan Ullrich would not have been
in the TdF this year without them. We're happy that they ripped off lameasses
such as yourself so they could afford to pay the salaries and travel expenses
of the riders and support staff.

Thank you very much for being a sucker. You have contributed very much to the
bike racing fans' entertainment this summer. It was a very interesting race,
thanks to you.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:22:30 -0500, "Carl Sundquist"
wrote:


"JP" wrote in message news:zI1cb.1534
I'm wary if for no other reason than how Justin chose to disclose
information about the
situation.

I'll let you into a secret.

He did it in the internet.



Someone recently said, "Ahhh another response packed with intelligence and
reasoned
debate."

Too bad that person is a hypocrite.


Ask Santa for a dictionary.
It'll help your improve your understanding of English.



Since you feel so compelled to speak for Justin, please tell us why he omitted a
description with pertinent details of his problem for 22 posts in 6 days.
First post on 17 September outlined the problem: crack in frame.

Quote from my first posting:
"On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from
Van Herwerden Wielersport in the Netherlands. I have used this frame
during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in a total of 13
or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I
bought the frame established that it had cracked in at least two
places.



The frame was returned to Italy via the Dutch importer. After several
weeks I received notice that Bianchi is not prepared to replace the
frame simply saying that it is outside the one year guarantee period."

What is lacking from this descripton: it cracked in two places (at
least) and was returned to Italy via the importer. This implies that
both the dealer and importer were of the opinion that the product was
defective.



Please tell us why in his original post he says in his opening paragraph, "Would Bianchi
still act in this way if the defects had resulted in personal injury?" when this has no
bearing on the situation he described?

That is why I used a conditional verb: I was looking at a hypothetical
situation. Thanks for pointing that out. The bearing that this
hypothetical situation has on the current situation is its similarity
reagrding the legal obligation of the manufacturer.

The question would be objected to and thrown out of
any court where he might raise it.

This is a NG, not a court!
See later postings in this group from Davide Tossi: a supplier of
goods who confirms that throughout the European Uninon the law
provides redress for defects outside the warranty period.

Please tell us, as I asked of Justin, "Why would a qualified lawyer feel the need to
express and defend himself on Dutch law in this non-legal, predominately non Dutch forum?"
and expect the majority of the responses to be knowledgeable of Dutch or EC laws?

I was suggesting that Bianchi should replace the frame or make a
contribution towards a new one: people asked upon what I based this
assertion. I am primarilly interested in the poor service from Bianchi
and was inetersted to hear other people's opinions. I am in the
minority in expecting Bianchi to act: I am however within my rights.
Consumer law is also fairly universal regards principles. I am just
surprised at the lie down and die attitude of so many of you.

I have a
few questions about Oklahoma inheritance law. Everybody has relatives that die, most
leaving an inheritance to others, so its a common issue. You who are wise in the ways of
the law, please answer them for me?

Please tell us, as I raised the question to Justin, given the vehemence with which he
presented his POV, the claim that Bianchi's reputation is at an all time low, and the
claim of 70% failure rate of the frames, that he had an opportunity to initiate a class
action lawsuit against Bianchi. Is he really interested in looking out for his fellow
consumers or just himself?

I am interested in my own case. The dealer has replaced the frames in
question with another brand. A class action is more appropriate in
personal injury cases: as yet all defects have manifested themselves
in a way which has not caused injury. I have made this forum aware of
of the failure rate of Bianchi. I urge Kurgan et al to purchase
Bianchis. That is Civil responsibility

Where is his sense of civil responsibility? As much as he is
concerned about supposition regarding personal injury, with a 70% failure rate shouldn't
he be trying to get an injunction to stop Bianchi from selling the frames? HE COULD BE
SAVING LIVES!!! WHERE IS JUSTIN'S SENSE OF CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY???

Please tell us, JP!!! Inquiring minds want to know what you know!!!

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:35:42 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:


"Justin Lewis" om wrote in
message ...

Failed the Bar exam, eh?

Interesting concept: one qualifies by failing! One must judge Kyle's
contributions to this group in their historical context:

Kyle: Were you able to ride the bike? Mission accomplished.

My reply: I was advised not to ride the bike by the dealer: it was
dangerous.

Kyle: You don't get it. Were you advised not to ride the bike the day
you bought it? If not, then then the "product should be reasonably fit
for the purpose for which it was sold" and it was.

This is a person who abuses other contributors for their stupidity and
lack of knowledge whilst applying a test of reasonableness for purpose
which is as follows:

In the absence of advice against using the product from the seller on
the day of purchase, the product must be deemed to have metthe implied
condition of fitness for purpose.

Well Kyle, what is it like to have your head so far up your arse you
can see your last braincell flickering on and off?





You don't understand do you? We like Bianchi. Jan Ullrich would not have been
in the TdF this year without them. We're happy that they ripped off lameasses
such as yourself so they could afford to pay the salaries and travel expenses
of the riders and support staff.

Thank you very much for being a sucker. You have contributed very much to the
bike racing fans' entertainment this summer. It was a very interesting race,
thanks to you.

Well thought out Kurgan: can you also see Kyle's last braincell
flickering?

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:35:42 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:


"Justin Lewis" om wrote in
message ...

Failed the Bar exam, eh?

Interesting concept: one qualifies by failing! One must judge Kyle's
contributions to this group in their historical context:

Kyle: Were you able to ride the bike? Mission accomplished.

My reply: I was advised not to ride the bike by the dealer: it was
dangerous.

Kyle: You don't get it. Were you advised not to ride the bike the day
you bought it? If not, then then the "product should be reasonably fit
for the purpose for which it was sold" and it was.

This is a person who abuses other contributors for their stupidity and
lack of knowledge whilst applying a test of reasonableness for purpose
which is as follows:

In the absence of advice against using the product from the seller on
the day of purchase, the product must be deemed to have metthe implied
condition of fitness for purpose.

Well Kyle, what is it like to have your head so far up your arse you
can see your last braincell flickering on and off?





You don't understand do you? We like Bianchi. Jan Ullrich would not have been
in the TdF this year without them. We're happy that they ripped off lameasses
such as yourself so they could afford to pay the salaries and travel expenses
of the riders and support staff.

Thank you very much for being a sucker. You have contributed very much to the
bike racing fans' entertainment this summer. It was a very interesting race,
thanks to you.

Dumbass -

You could use some improvement to your level of smacktalk. No one is
impressed by that sort of one-line

Justin Lewis wrote:

In the absence of advice against using the product from the seller on
the day of purchase, the product must be deemed to have metthe implied
condition of fitness for purpose.


You did manage to get more than a season out of it, didn't you? I think that
proves that it was fit for the purpose.

Well Kyle, what is it like to have your head so far up your arse you
can see your last braincell flickering on and off?

I had no idea brain cells flickered. Thanks for providing your first hand
knowledge on the subject.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:28:06 GMT, "Kyle Legate"
wrote:

Justin Lewis wrote:

In the absence of advice against using the product from the seller on
the day of purchase, the product must be deemed to have metthe implied
condition of fitness for purpose.


You did manage to get more than a season out of it, didn't you? I think that
proves that it was fit for the purpose.

Well Kyle, what is it like to have your head so far up your arse you
can see your last braincell flickering on and off?

I had no idea brain cells flickered. Thanks for providing your first hand
knowledge on the subject.

No Justin lewis wrote:
"Kyle: You don't get it. Were you advised not to ride the bike the day
you bought it? If not, then then the "product should be reasonably fit
for the purpose for which it was sold" and it was.

This is a person who abuses other contributors for their stupidity and
lack of knowledge whilst applying a test of reasonableness for purpose
which is as follows:

In the absence of advice against using the product from the seller on
the day of purchase, the product must be deemed to have metthe implied
condition of fitness for purpose."

Despite the fact that you think it proves it was fit for the purpose,
I can assure you that , for reasons already outlined, it was not. The
fact that that you are not capable of understanding those reasons is
your problem. Try reading Davide's two postings. Try reading.

Just some major corrections to follow :

"Justin Lewis" om a écrit
dans le message de :
...

What is lacking from this descripton: it cracked in two places (at
least) and was returned to Italy via the importer. This implies that
both the dealer and importer were of the opinion that the product was
defective.

No implication available, unless you can back that with writings by these
companies to Bianchi, that the product failed under conditions of use
expressly ( NOT implicitly ) required by you. Manufacturers usually require
proof by inspection to handle claims of defects causing failure. Getting
the frame there is a natual part of the process.

Please tell us why in his original post he says in his opening paragraph,
"Would Bianchi
still act in this way if the defects had resulted in personal injury?"
when this has no
bearing on the situation he described?

That is why I used a conditional verb: I was looking at a hypothetical
situation. Thanks for pointing that out. The bearing that this
hypothetical situation has on the current situation is its similarity
reagrding the legal obligation of the manufacturer.

WRONG. ( Did I really write that little ? ) Does the term "consequential
damages" remind you ? A hint :
http://www.laytons.com/publications/...tm#ecdirective


See later postings in this group from Davide Tossi [sic]: a supplier of
goods who confirms that throughout the European Uninon [sic] the law
provides redress for defects outside the warranty period.

While I *also* confirmed the existence of legal redress outside a warranty
period, there is no law available to support your claim as you have put it.
David mentioned "durable goods", and it is not good law to say that a
bicycle is a durable good, nor would its use as you describe bring any
extension into play. Racing bikes don't last as long used as racing bikes,
as a city bike, which is used twice a month, briefly. You know the law ?
Then cite it.


I am in the
minority in expecting Bianchi to act: I am however within my rights.
Consumer law is also fairly universal regards [sic] principles. I am just
surprised at the lie down and die attitude of so many of you.

But you are surprised that Bianchi relied on ITS
warranty and contract rights ? You are supposed to win because you are the
poor, little guy ?
Just for fun - what if you were wrong .... ?

Please tell us, as I raised the question to Justin, given the vehemence
with which he
presented his POV, the claim that Bianchi's reputation is at an all time
low, and the
claim of 70% failure rate of the frames, that he had an opportunity to
initiate a class
action lawsuit against Bianchi. Is he really interested in looking out
for his fellow
consumers or just himself?

I am interested in my own case. The dealer has replaced the frames in
question with another brand. A class action is more appropriate in
personal injury cases: as yet all defects have manifested themselves
in a way which has not caused injury. I have made this forum aware of
of the failure rate of Bianchi. I urge Kurgan et al to purchase
Bianchis. That is Civil responsibility

Class actions are fine in all sorts of situations : minority shareholder
rights, unfair trade dealings, and utility tariffs, to mention just a few.
Most *practicing* lawyers know that, and make a good living at it.

Academically yours -----

"Justin Lewis" om wrote
in message


That is why I used a conditional verb: I was looking at a hypothetical
situation. Thanks for pointing that out. The bearing that this
hypothetical situation has on the current situation is its similarity
reagrding the legal obligation of the manufacturer.


Similar how? It is not similar. That is retarded bull****. "Dangerous"
products and "malfunctioning" products are as far apart in liability as it
can get.



I am primarilly interested in the poor service from Bianchi
and was inetersted to hear other people's opinions. I am in the
minority in expecting Bianchi to act: I am however within my rights.
Consumer law is also fairly universal regards principles. I am just
surprised at the lie down and die attitude of so many of you.

You acted like a baby. Any product can break. You were not looking for
opinions, you were looking for support of your opinion and revenge.

"Justin Lewis" om wrote
in message

Well thought out Kurgan: can you also see Kyle's last braincell
flickering?

Is this how you mark your student papers?

Come clean. How old are you? You are a law STUDENT, not a professor or
teacher. No way, no how.