![]() |
Originally Posted by Sy Reene
(Post 20992361)
I don't think so.. ie. the burden of proof resides with the accuser/plaintiff. In your scenario, the accuser would be asked to provide evidence that he/she for example, didn't possibly damage their own frame after inspection (eg. after running thru a deep pothole or whatnot). This is somewhat reminiscent of the JRA threads and warranty claims for frame failures from 'just riding around".
|
Originally Posted by colnago62
(Post 20992840)
I doubt that would even be an issue. I think you would find a judge or jury would connect the dots and come to the conclusion that there was damage that the shop missed. This is a civil case, the burden of proof is much lower. The Schwinn bike reflector case is an example of why it would probably not even go to court.
I can’t possibly see that being a winner for the shop in court with a plaintiff (for example) sitting in a wheel chair and drooling and then watch the shop trying to defend their decision after some industry CF expert or bike expert testifies that damage that is catastrophic is often hidden inside the frame. Doubt that would ever get to court, the insurance company would have their checkbook out right away to settle and then cancel the shop’s policy. |
Originally Posted by colnago62
(Post 20992840)
I doubt that would even be an issue. I think you would find a judge or jury would connect the dots and come to the conclusion that there was damage that the shop missed. This is a civil case, the burden of proof is much lower. The Schwinn bike reflector case is an example of why it would probably not even go to court.
I can’t possibly see that being a winner for the shop in court with a plaintiff (for example) sitting in a wheel chair and drooling and then watch the shop trying to defend their decision after some industry CF expert or bike expert testifies that damage that is catastrophic is often hidden inside the frame. Doubt that would ever get to court, the insurance company would have their checkbook out right away to settle and then cancel the shop’s policy. |
Still can't see why a shop can't inspect it, give it a hard time in front of the customer, and say that although more stringent methods are required to pronounce it good, you can't say it's bad after the tests the customer has seen.
Here you go mate, certified not definitely cactus. We don't promise it's good, but it has no obvious damage and you've seen what it survived without a creak. I say common sense demands a happy medium between bending over for the lawyers and telling customers to go jump. ... On another note, anyone seen this? ENVE have announced a no questions lifetime replacement policy for original owners of their parts, doesn't matter how the damage happened. And it's retroactive! https://www.bikeradar.com/news/enve-...nt-protection/ Suddenly their gear is a whole lot better value. |
Originally Posted by Kimmo
(Post 20995201)
Still can't see why a shop can't inspect it, give it a hard time in front of the customer, and say that although more stringent methods are required to pronounce it good, you can't say it's bad after the tests the customer has seen.
Here you go mate, certified not definitely cactus. We don't promise it's good, but it has no obvious damage and you've seen what it survived without a creak. I say common sense demands a happy medium between bending over for the lawyers and telling customers to go jump. ... On another note, anyone seen this? ENVE have announced a no questions lifetime replacement policy for original owners of their parts, doesn't matter how the damage happened. And it's retroactive! https://www.bikeradar.com/news/enve-...nt-protection/ Suddenly their gear is a whole lot better value. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.