Where do stand with defective frame? Consumer rights...

[BrynCP]

A consumer has no contract whatsoever with a manufacturer if they bought the goods from a 3rd party supplier.

Yes, many manufacturers will print a note about 12 months in their manual or on the box etc. but you can't actually enforce it. If this guarantee/warranty is part of the sales description, then you can claim against the supplier, as it was part of your contract. If it wasn't part of the sales description, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

However, the Sales of Goods Act protects you for six years so long as after six months you can prove the fault is an inherent defect, but again your claim is against the supplier.

The OP can try all routes, but legally the worst case outcome is the OP is put back in the position they were prior to purchasing the frame, i.e. a £650 refund, potentially with a deduction from the £650 refund for enjoyment so far.

 

[Matthames]

Having worked in retail, the best thing that the OP can actually do is go to the retailer where he brought the bike from. Warranties are worth didley squat and the manufacturers don't have an obligation to uphold it.

The sales of goods act in England and Wales would give you up to 6 years of protection and in Scotland this would be 5; however the onus is on you to prove that the fault is due to a manufacturing defect that was not apparent at the point of sale and is not down to what can be considered as reasonable wear and tear.

I see that the OP has contacted the retailer and they have offered to replace the bike with a similar spec, I would say that the OP should speak to the retailer and get clarification on what that means and work with them in resolving the issue as that is who the OP has their contract with.

One of the worst things that you can do is to go shouting the odds to the retailer, especially when they are working with you to resolve the issue.

With what clearly looks like a defect with the paint work, the OP should not have a problem getting the issue sorted, unless the OP has tried to do any repairs which could have further exacerbated the problem.

 

[Cuchilo]

Those pictures look like osmosis ( moisture in the carbon layup causing it to delaminate ) Just my 2p worth .

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

The OP can try all routes, but legally the worst case outcome is the OP is put back in the position they were prior to purchasing the frame, i.e. a £650 refund, potentially with a deduction from the £650 refund for enjoyment so far.

The imaginary scenario, whether Lotto losing your winning lottery ticket owe you £2 or £2 million in a court of law comes to mind...

If the OP is only getting a full refund, then he is deprived of what is clearly a bargain (well the seller would certainly have agreed at the point of sale) through no fault of his own. It is therefore debateable whether he should be put back in the position he was in if the frame was never faulty (Tort?), or if the frame was never bought (SoGA). Perhaps this is why seller/manufacturer are often prepared to offer the buyer the closest replacement, not just an inferior item (by not taking account of the discount).

Something similar to this actually happened to me at a jeweller a couple of years ago. I bought a £2500 ring discounted from £5000 in a sale, which they managed to ruin. I was offered the full £5000 to spend on anything they sell.

If I were the OP I would not wait for them for an offer, but look up Look's current offerings to identify what is the closest replacement (with good justification) and ask for that - it will help the shop to help you because they have to make a case to Look and this way they know Look is the only party left to be convinced, and what is replacing a frame by a similar frame to Look, given the cost of potential reputation risk a public fight might cause such a premium brand?

 

[BrynCP]

The imaginary scenario, whether Lotto losing your winning lottery ticket owe you £2 or £2 million in a court of law comes to mind...

If the OP is only getting a full refund, then he is deprived of what is clearly a bargain (well the seller would certainly have agreed at the point of sale) through no fault of his own. It is therefore debateable whether he should be put back in the position he was in if the frame was never faulty (Tort?), or if the frame was never bought (SoGA). Perhaps this is why seller/manufacturer are often prepared to offer the buyer the closest replacement, not just an inferior item (by not taking account of the discount).

I did say worst case outcome. The problem is that SoGA is quite clear cut, Loss of Bargain is anything but. Start quoting SoGA to a retailer and they'll eventually sort it out, quote Loss of Bargain and it's likely a "see you in court".

I butted into this thread knowing nothing about the product: but one thing worth bearing in mind is that RRP isn't necessarily the true worth of the product, especially if it's end of line. If the true worth of the frame is £650, as the 2013 badge makes it worth less (for the judge to determine) then by refunding £650 there is no loss of bargain, as you can go and buy another frame worth £650.

 

[JonF]

Thanks for the input guys, it's clearly going to be a long process, seeing as I got told buy my supplier it'll take between 6 weeks to 2/3 months, which I think is a P**S take, there goes most of the summer on my winter/single speed hack