I am still not totally happy with this but feel that I owe it to other new builders who sink an awlful lot of time and money into their projects.
I must stress that this is only from my own personal experience.
I bought an R1 engine for my Indy from Colin Poole AKA Colibriman engines, paid £900 and have found that the gearbox is knackered.
I am not saying that he knew it was shot I like to think he did not. I just think that to take £900 from someone and offer no comeback is out of
order, he obviously does not check his engines.
Coliriman does not now appear to advertise on this site anymore but can still be found on E bay if you've got money to throw away!
to offer no comeback would appear foolish. I trust the gearbox was like that from the off, and not after some driving?
If it was like that straight away, then for him to offer no comeback is very silly indeed, no way to keep business in the booming bike breaking
trade........its getting increasingly cuthroat!
How many times must I say this on this site....
Trading Standards!
Phone your local office and find out the situation as to whether you have any recourse.
Atleast look at the sale of goods act.
Good must be 'fit for purpose' as described.
HTH,
James
trading standards could argue that a motor bike engine isnt fit for a car anyway thus geting around the "not fit for purpose" argument.
Define what is meant by 'fit for purpose'...............
quote:
Originally posted by timbo
I am still not totally happy with this but feel that I owe it to other new builders who sink an awlful lot of time and money into their projects.
I must stress that this is only from my own personal experience.
I bought an R1 engine for my Indy from Colin Poole AKA Colibriman engines, paid £900 and have found that the gearbox is knackered.
I am not saying that he knew it was shot I like to think he did not. I just think that to take £900 from someone and offer no comeback is out of order, he obviously does not check his engines.
Coliriman does not now appear to advertise on this site anymore but can still be found on E bay if you've got money to throw away!
well if the engine was just sold as or advertised a an engine then that would be ok, but if sold as "bike engine" i could see an argument. . . . .ie name a mass produced car that has a bike engine sir...... not that i'm against it, i just cant afford one lol
It's application after you've bought it has nothing to do with it. It's an engine. If, as a buyer, you can prove that you bought it
under false pretences, or it was misrepresented in some way, you may have some recourse. Otherwise it's back to the all-too-familiar phrase -
Caveat Emptor.
I'd keep trying to contact Colin, at least to cover the cost of the repairs. I'm sure there are plenty of people on here who have contact
details for him and he seemed like a reasonable chap. Quite a few people on here have had engines from him.
Phil
[Edited on 9-11-06 by Hellfire]
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
It's application after you've bought it has nothing to do with it. It's an engine. If, as a buyer, you can prove that you bought it under false pretences, or it was misrepresented in some way, you may have some recourse. Otherwise it's back to the all-too-familiar phrase - Caveat Emptor.
...
how ca nanyone prove it was fitted to a car or bike or anything else for that matter?
if you have receipt and some warranty then speak to the seller; if no joy, send a letter threatening court action, that usually sparks off a response.
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Second part is correct, first part isn't IMO.
How it's used is certainly relevent. As a thought experiment imagine taking back a wood chisel after using it on stone paving slabs. Would you expect a refund?
I have spoken to him and text and e-mailed and left messages on his answerphone. How many chances does he need to reply with any offer of help. I have been trying to get an answer since August ! He does seem a nice bloke but I can only go on my experience to date. I am not saying he sold it to me knowing it was knackered but he has not offered any help to sort the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by TimC
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Second part is correct, first part isn't IMO.
How it's used is certainly relevent. As a thought experiment imagine taking back a wood chisel after using it on stone paving slabs. Would you expect a refund?
Sorry mate, but your argument is flawed. Providing that the 'box was trashed when it was sold, the thought experiment is more like buying a wooden chisel (for whatever purpose) and opening the box to find sawdust - i.e not fit to use on anything (or not fit to propel any vehicle to go back to the practical argument.)
[Edited on 9/11/06 by TimC]
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=41552&page=2
It depends on what the bike engine was sold for - if it is sold to go into a BEC then obviously it has to be fit for that purpose. Again, depends on what was said between buyer and seller.
No, it doesn't. If it's broken before it's even been used by the customer, it's broken.
Refer to my earlier post for an analogy.
quote:
Originally posted by TimC
No, it doesn't. If it's broken before it's even been used by the customer, it's broken.
Refer to my earlier post for an analogy.
From my dealing of trading standards....
For you to claim its not fit for purpose you have to have it confirmed (in writting via packaging or letter) or orally (but hard to prove) that it
would do that job.
An engine's job it to turn a spline (not a car/bike/generator). A gearbox's purpose is to turn one end faster or slower than the other (or
oppisite drection).
If the trader have said it was fit for the required application or it scientifically it is able to then it is fit for purpose.
In answer to several posts, personally I would say it is not unrealistic for a bike engine to power a lightweight car. However if you were building a
BE Bulldozer then thats a different issue.
As it is we are talking about a gearbox, therfore as long as it is able to cope with the speed from the engine (which it is) and the resistance from
the ground/air etc (which again is proven) then its fine.
The fact it was trashed to begin with would suggest that it was never fit for any job.
Sorry for the ramblings but that is my interpretation from my experiences.
in my book this one is simple.
If it was broken when first used (i..e first attempt at selecting the dodgy gear) then the trader should sort it for you.
If it was broken in use after some time (even short time) then its at his/her discression. Most would offer some assistance but not necessarily pay
for the repair fully.
The argument over fit for the car etc is only true if it broke "in use", not "on first use".
quote:
Originally posted by iank
quote:
Originally posted by TimC
No, it doesn't. If it's broken before it's even been used by the customer, it's broken.
Refer to my earlier post for an analogy.
Errrr, we are agreeing if you read my post. My point is that if you buy a working bike engine and aren't told (preferably in writing) it's suitable for a car you are very unlikely to be covered by "fit for purpose" rules if it breaks after 20mins.
Im really not sure what's happened to Colin lately, I dealt with him about 18 months ago and he couldnt have been more helpful, delivered an
immaculate 2003 R1 engine in person, was always at the end of the phone / keyboard to answer questions and was very helpful afterwards sourcing me a
couple of parts FOC that were missing from the original loom which we didnt notice until I came to install it a few months later.
Having seen a couple of instances like this recently, I can only assume he's come across hard times and feels he has no other choice but to play
things dirty when things go wrong in order to make ends meet, which is a real shame and not something I'd have expected of him.
Chris
[Edited on 12/11/06 by ChrisGamlin]
He went out of his way to help but he did say in winter when things went quiet he went back to his electrician job.