omg my rear mech snapped clean off

[Euan Uzami]

I agree with Polar Bear's and Zoidburg's general principle that they don't have the right to dodge their obligation under SOGA.
My problem though is that I don't feel sufficiently aggrieved to take exception to that. I just think that it isn't in my best interests to be hostile. The thought did occur to me that if I did it might make things better for future customers in similar scenarios, but no evidence suggests that they wouldn't try it again as it would be worth their while.

[fred the great]

Unfortunately, my Profession doesn't permit me to agree with you last two gentlemen, not BJT who jumped in whilst I was typing .

I wasn't aware that anybody was trying to dodge their obligation?

Anyway I have said all I wish to say and await further information and hopefully a favourable result.

[iakobski]

OK, having seen Zoidburgs' and Biggsy's comments that this could not possibly have happened through misuse, I now concur, the shop should have replaced on the spot.

However, I simply don't agree with Polar Bear that the customer is entitled to simply demand an instant replacement on any broken item.

[Polar Bear]

If a nearly new item breaks without the owner doing anything untoward to it then they are entitled to repair or replacement.   Given that this is a nearly new mech which should last for a very long time in reality, then replacement or money back is the only appropriate action in this case.   Let's face it, you'd expect over time to replace jockey wheels but not to have a mech body fall apart in such a dramatic manner.

In terms of the law this could extend upto six years depending upon the item and the circumstances and ultimately may not cover the full cost of the item as per the circumstances.

And I agree, the customer is not simply entitled to demand a replacement on any broken item.  If the customer breaks it by using it inappropriately then they are not entitled.   If it fails in what would be the normal parameters of use then they are entitled to redress.    The cost doesn't fall on the retailer anyway so I don't see why the retailer gets the hump.      

<edit>

I should also have added:  

If the retailer believes that the item has been abused then they have the obligation to refuse, not to duck and simply send it off to somewhere else.   The contract is between retailer and purchaser, not purchaser and any-man-jack-in-the-supply-chain-until-somebody-takes-responsibility.  

Why would a supplier bother as there is no legal obligation or liability on them?

My occupation precludes me from accepting that a retailer can defer because legally they cannot.  

</edit>

[phil d]

Being neither a retailer or a lawyer (nor an aggrieved customer, for that matter) this is unfamiliar ground for me.  But I always thought that a guarantee provided for replacement or repair.  While I'm not suggesting that the broken part could be repaired, the mech theoretically could be (though I would doubt that anyone in the supply chain would wish to).

Against this background, I find it hard to condemn the retailer for the action taken, though it clearly does little to foster good customer relations.

[The Mechanic]

I have to agree with the "Retailer is responsible" argument.  In the case like this where you could reasonable expect several years of use out of a rear mech, I think the retailer should have replaced it.  I also agree that most retailers will try to wriggle out of their SOGA obligatrions by sending it back to the manufacturer.