Checking warranty legislation

The service book of my new kwaka wants me to keep taking the bike to a
dealer for normal servicing in order to maintain the warranty. Didn't
they do away with this crap ages ago? It's been so long since I bought a
new bike I'm a bit out of touch.

Kim

 

With cars yes as along as it's a mechanic who follows the book , I
expect in your case the same , why not ask them in person and see if
they flince.

 

They will ask you to do that.

In practice it's enough that a suitably qualified individual does the
servicing (another bike shop mechanic of some type).

If you intend to do your own servicing and something goes wrong they may
argue warranty claims (although that might not stand up in the long run,
but it'd still be a pain).


G-S

 

I seem to remember a court finding that if the manufacturer
*requires* you to use genuine consumable parts that they must
provide them for free. Part of a legal challenge on the part
of an aftermarket consumables manufacturer IIRC. Does this ring
bells with anyone?


GB

 

Is there any extended warranty that was offered by the dealer at
purchase? a sneaky trick is to organise an extended warranty, but it
voids itself unless the manufacturers servicing is done at the place of
purchase. It wont however void the manufacturers warranty getting the
bike serviced where-ever you want using comparible quality parts - just
remember to get the book stamped

 

No. Paying dealer make-back-what-we-conceded-on-the-sale prices for
servicing is madness. Using a QC to do what a half-competent solicitor
could do, or indeed you could do yourself, would be equally mad.
Caveat: finding a half competent solicitor and/or punter might be
a bit tricky.

Proof that the bloke/tte who serviced your bike is 'competent' could
well be as simple as representing to the court (with appropriate
proofs) that the individual holds an appropriate trade qualification.
If the NSW Department of TAFE gives them a motor mechanic's ticket,
they're deemed by the gummint to be competent.


GB

 

I think this is how it works:

1. You must follow the manufacturer's scheduled service intervals and
service requirements.
1a. If you fail to do this you may still have warranty cover but you may
be required to prove that the failure to service was unrelated to the
vehicle failure you are attempting to get reimbursement on.
2. Said servicing must be undertaken by a competent supplier.
2a. If it is done by an authorised dealer this competence is assumed.
2b. If you fail to use an authorised dealer you may still have warranty
cover but you may have to prove that the person who did the servicing
was competent.

Since (1a) and (2b) may involve going to court and watching while your
QC burns up thousands of dollars an hour slugging it out with their QC,
wouldn't you rather pay a few hundred dollars for the 4 dealer services
that you require under warranty?

 

Which is why I basically said that using another motorbike shop is ok
but doing your own warranty servicing (unless you're officially
qualified) can be problematic...

I'm sure you people don't read your own threads


G-S

 

That's right, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you won't be
covered. Like the retail stores that display "we reserve the right
to inspect all bags" and "no refunds or exchanges" signs, they can
write anything they like in their warranties or on their signs, but
the simple acts of writing and displaying to not oblige compliance
on the part of the customer. The acts of writing on displaying DO
imply that you might have a bit of a scuffle on your hands on the
way to getting what you're legally entitled to, mind.


GB, I've often wondered what makes them think that they can 'reserve'
a right that they don't have.

 

put simply
"Bluff"
I get a perverse pleasure refusing them.

 

your wrong but no matter
What's next, suing them for asking for proof of

what a silly suggestion

 

That smells rather a lot like the tired old "You have nothing to
fear if you have nothing to hide" line, and we all know where
that gets us.


GB

 

I take grave offense at that. What a stupid thing to say. If
anything, blind compliance with bizarre 'rules' is far more
characteristic of the American 'way' than atec's conscientious
resistance to the mindlessness of the rules.

Again, what a stupid thing to say.


GB

 

Depends on the point at which you aren't prepared to accept someone
trying one on with you. That's dependent on the individual.

 

Your approach is a bit (technically) flawed. Coles and Woolies and
the like have it figured out with their "It is a condition of entry
to this store that you will present your bags...". By entering the
store you consent to the search.

I was observing the smaller and/or less organised stores that use
things like "we reserve the right to..." or "no refunds" or, a rather
cute balls-up I saw just this week "It is a condition of entry to
this store that we reserve the right to...".

If someone at Coles/Woolies wants to fight you on your written
apology and the copper part, you'll lose.

My experience is that a terse "No" in response to the request to
look at your stuff is actually quite effective. There's really no
need to make a fool of yourself with a silly speech.

If you fall for that, then you consent to the search. It's not a
difficult situation to manipulate. Make them take your money and
go to the checkout thing if it bother's you that much. Alternatively
go through the checkout and affect an "unhinged" look whilst
delivering your terse "No" on the way out. No problem!


Having said all of that, I still haven't the foggiest how such
activity could be seen as 'American'.


GB

 

I tell them

'You're perfectly welcome to search my bag/jacket whatever. However as
I'm forgoing one of my rights to pretend you have one you don't, in
advance I want a written apology and a copper present before I comply'

*Especially* those times when you go to buy smokes at Coles at the front
counter and they make you come in and use the express lane.

 

If asked I just insist that ALL the bags and ALL the pockets in ALL the
bags be checked

Imagine going out of a store with a daypack and 6 green bags

 

As long as they have a clear, large sign that it is basically impossible
to miss *before* one enters the store proper then that's fine.

I've objected a couple of times simply because the store in question
either doesn't have a sign at all or it's a small sign out of the way
near the exit and not the entrance.

Not putting a sign up or putting it near the exit point denies me the
option of making an informed choice and not entering the store in the
first place.

It's not about stealing stuff, it's about invasion of personal space and
with an obvious sign near the entrance I can simply elect to leave my
briefcase or backpack on my bike or in the car.


G-S

 

I put a full set of dildos, chaps, ropes, gags and <insert[1] sex toys
that I don't even know the names of> into my bag and open it[2] for
them. Usually shuts them up[3].

Heh.

[1] Heh heh heh. He said "insert".
[2] Heh heh, "open".
[3] Heh, ok, I'll shut up now.

 

How come all the posts by GB are marked this post has expired even
though they are recent. And why cant this happen with GOD posts and
various others