Inspection expectations: What would you do?

[Sharn]

Woodman- no the owners did not, and when informing them of my findings they have expressed surprise (which could be true or false, but I am in no position to make a judgement)

Mossy- all faults I have noted are visual. I am going to inform the shop in writing if I am taking this matter further and allow them 10 days to offer a response/solution to my problem.

The issue I forsee is finding a shop locally who is willing to provide a legal document for me. Seems they may like to stay in bed with each other....

[Road kill]

Unfortunately the MTA are a pretty toothless lot to deal with from what I've heard.

In the real world a lawyer is just another person that will probably cost you more than their worth.

Another unfortunate,,is the amount of times I've read this same story here and on other bike sites.

Cracked fairing,dented radiator or repainted frame is not hard to see,,,all you need is eyes.

A damaged swing arm,,,eyes again.

I think you should at lest get a refund on the inspection cost,but your pushing it up hill for any more than that.

[Paul in NZ]

does it run well.....

[carburator]

you might get a refund of the inspection costs and thats it..
bit like building reports might as well wipe your ass with them when you read the fine print.

what stopped you from poking a torch around the bike in the first place, as for a spacer on the shock
thats common ive seen it a number of times to raise the rear of the bike..

[tigertim20]

Tigertim- whats the point of a prepurchase then if its 'just an opinion'? It's supposed to be a service offered by experts to inform buyers, and to be honest, the faults they identified were pretty basic...

I am in the process of getting another shop to inspect the bike to identify faults, as well as identifing the value of the bike if it was in the portrayed condition and the value of the bike as it sits. We will see what happens from there...

Pay $500 an hour for a lawyer and youll still only be getting their opinion. even if they are qualified, they can only tell you what THEY think.
Id be interested to see some detailed photographs of the bike to see how obvious these faults are.

Were you paying for a mechanical inspection or a cosmetic one, or both? I check bikes myself, I dont trust other people to tell me if something is shit or not, so I have never used places like that.

Its rough I know, but I think you are lumped with what you have. You might get the cost of the inspection back, but thats about it I would have thought.

[Hitcher]

You've got no case, unfortunately.

The shop doing the "inspection" wasn't selling the bike. They have no liability for not finding faults, including "obvious" ones. Any liability depends on the basis of sale between you and the bike's previous owner.

You could try naming and shaming. However that tactic is largely pointless, as most New Zealand distributors and retailers will attest. Many don't actually care what people think about them, despite the legitimacy of any claim. Given the low margins most operate under and the currently depressed motorcycling business generally, such behaviour while reprehensible is also understandable.

You should chalk your purchase up to experience and try selling the bike to some other gullible soul for the same price for which you acquired it. You could also recommend the dealer who did the inspection for you.

[Padmei]

Idd say it extends further than refund.
If a builder gives you a pre purchase inspection on a home and it is found that they have missed what would be expected to be found they become liable for the cost of repairs.

Why would this be any different?

WTF? I don't believe a word of that sorry. If this was true nobody would give prepurchase inspections on anything.

In my book you can't really be serious wanting the bike shop to repair faults that weren't caused by them.
Bike shops seem to take quite a thrashing on KB. All they're doing like anyone is trying to provide a service - sometimes they don't provide a good enough service -like many many businesses.
Did the bike shop know how much it was worth? When I've asked mechs in the past if a car/ bike whatever was worth the asking price they defered as it wasn't really in their interest to pass judgement.

[Matt_TG]

I'd consider the Disputes Tribunal.

The mediator: "So you wanted a professional opinion on what sort of condition the bike was in and you employed a professional in the field of motorcycling to give you that opinion?"

You: "Yes"

The mediator: "And that professional that you engaged failed to identify or advise on aspects of the motorcycle that would have a bearing on whether you purchased it or not, leading you to a decision with future financial ramifications"

You: "Yes"

I see it as being a win for you as long as you are sure that the faults found now would have reasonably been found by a competent person at the time that it was presented for inspection (get a report from whoever has recently looked at the bike), and you had no reason to believe the person not to be competent (reputation, advertising, general business longevity etc).

OR, name and shame here....

[flyingcrocodile46]

you might get a refund of the inspection costs and thats it..
bit like building reports might as well wipe your ass with them when you read the fine print.

what stopped you from poking a torch around the bike in the first place, as for a spacer on the shock
thats common ive seen it a number of times to raise the rear of the bike..

That bit is both true and not true. The average pre-purchase inspection service provider for housing is providing seriously substandard reports, but recent determinations have held that the report provider has a duty of care under both the CGA and FTA to provide services in accordance with the NZ standard for condition reporting. More than a few have had to foot the bill to remediate the faults in houses (running to hundreds of thousands). If the money and/or insurer is there, and it can be demonstrated that there is a failure to have provided professional advice to the established minimum industry standard, then it is game on.

You've got no case, unfortunately.

The shop doing the "inspection" wasn't selling the bike. They have no liability for not finding faults, including "obvious" ones. Any liability depends on the basis of sale between you and the bike's previous owner.

You could try naming and shaming. However that tactic is largely pointless, as most New Zealand distributors and retailers will attest. Many don't actually care what people think about them, despite the legitimacy of any claim. Given the low margins most operate under and the currently depressed motorcycling business generally, such behaviour while reprehensible is also understandable.

You should chalk your purchase up to experience and try selling the bike to some other gullible soul for the same price for which you acquired it. You could also recommend the dealer who did the inspection for you.

Not correct imo. The provider of the professional services has a duty of care to (the party paying for the services) to satisfy the established minimum industry standards of inspection and reporting.

The customer has an expectation that they will receive professional advice as to the condition of the machine and they base their decisions (incl how much they will pay) on that advice. The breach of duty isn't about who's is responsible for the defects in the machine (obviously neither the buyer or the report provider) it is about the failure of the service provider to provide the expected level of service (which in this case was to identify the defects in the machine).

It's pretty clear that there has been a failure on the part of the service provider in this instance but unless the machine was marketed as/or reported to be in as new or fully restored condition the question as to what the fair and reasonable expectation of condition should be, will be subjective and cost time and money to confirm.

However, if it was me, I would "chalk your purchase up to experience and try selling the bike to some other gullible soul for the same price for which you" acquired it." As long as I could get 60% or more of my money back.

[Paul in NZ]

Look - you feel agrived and let down but again this is a case of expectation vs reality.

There is nothing on your list that i would not expect to see on a 17 year old 400... These bikes were sold to people who used them hard and put them away wet. There is very little to say its been raced, it may have done a few track days and if its a japan import it may have sat around outside for months awaiting export. Hell given the lack of garage space in japan its probably spent all its life outside. What makes you think the frame wouldnt need a touch up? Go look at a commuter bike park in wellie and GN250's / FXR's etc and scope out the frames....

Seriously - any 400 race rep will have had a bin at some point.... At least in my experience its probably not a biggie if its going OK.

As for the shock? Those things were never up to the job of keeping a scrawny 16 year old Japanese boy racers arse off the tyre when they were new. 17 years hasn't helped - sorry they are not much chop on any of the 400's stock...

You placed your trust in a company and you feel let down because now you think the bikes not up to your expectation.... Its just possible your expecations are too high.

If the bike runs and rides OK. Just go ride it and enjoy it and stop making yourself miserable. You simply can't shortcut the process of becoming a proficient and knowledgable motorcyclist any more than you can shortcut the process in becoming a teacher. There is pain involved... sorry...

[Ocean1]

There is pain involved... sorry...

That BSA bushman in a couple of boxes still hurts eh?

[mossy1200]

WTF? I don't believe a word of that sorry. If this was true nobody would give prepurchase inspections on anything.

Only 2 building firms in Wellington do full pre home building certificates now due to liability. Unless a special favour for a friend my neighbour who is a builder and company owner wont touch them as his friend had to do $10k of work attaching piles due to missing them in a inspection.
Maybe thats specific to the building industry.
Im looking at buying a house and he wont even do one for me.

[Paul in NZ]

That BSA bushman in a couple of boxes still hurts eh?

Don't I wish I had one....

But a thousand busted knuckles and assorted disappointments line the path... still not sure if im there yet but always learning

[Usarka]

You've got no case, unfortunately.

The shop doing the "inspection" wasn't selling the bike. They have no liability for not finding faults, including "obvious" ones. Any liability depends on the basis of sale between you and the bike's previous owner.

The CGA covers services. And it covers consequential loss. So why wouldn't there be a case?

http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/p...ervices-2-.pdf

Certainly not cut and dry though in this instance - some factors against a successful case would be the age of the bike, whether there was any agreement on the scope of the inspection etc. It would be interesting to know if there has been a test case like this where someone buys a product (house, car etc) based on shoddy advice.

[AllanB]

New Zealand has a special website for cases like this. Trademe - list your bike and pass it on ................