Mower Part Failed to Last

Aquamania

LilElvis wrote: »

He purchased the part in April, it broke in September meaning that it is less than 6 months old. Therefore the onus lies with the seller to prove that the item was not inherently faulty at the time of sale.

Correct, as I said I'm sure Ransomes will investigate

LilElvis wrote: »

The fact that it worked for nearly 6 months is not relevant.

In your opinion. In my opinion, based on the facts given, it is quite indicative

LilElvis wrote: »

As the part has, apparently, snapped then a replacement or refund would appear to be the only options available to the seller as a repair would probably not be possible/safe.

I'm sure Ransomes have a suitable replacement part for their machine. Even if it wasn't a manufacturing fault, but a design fault that caused the part to fail. I'm sure they would redeign & re-manufacture if that proved to be the case, but I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves here.

LilElvis wrote: »

The OPs legal rights lie with the seller, not the manufacturer.

Correct, no arguement there.
I understand the supplier has contacted Ramsomes who may ask for the part to be returned to be inspected.
The supplier has the right to have the part expertly inspected to establish liability before giving any refund (if appropriate)

LilElvis wrote: »

What you "suspect" is wholly irrelevant as I doubt you have any knowledge whatsoever of ride on mowers or their maintenance.

I think you clearly show you have no knowledge of Ramsomes and their business.

LilElvis wrote: »

I see no mention in the original post that the OP was anything other than polite so I can see no reason for you to assume that the lack of resolution to date is because he "went in all guns blazing".

Again, in your opinion.
But if the OP contacted the seller in the words they wrote their one and only post here, then I disagree with your opinion.
Anyway, as I agree it is entirely subjective, note the word 'if' in both possibilities that I covered.

LilElvis wrote: »

It is hardly uncommon for new posters to log off and not return for a while, and sometimes not at all.

Thanks, I see you have also noticed this trend

LilElvis wrote: »

They are also unlikely to return when they receive rude, unhelpful and factually inaccurate replies.

Perhaps try and be careful what you write in their thread then. If you could provide the OP with your version of advice, rather than just moaning at those that offer theirs, I'm sure we will all get along a lot better and newbies won't get scared off.

bris

Being 5 months old doesn't automatically give you the right to a remedy, misuse rules that out. 6 months just means its deemed inherent at purchase unless proven otherwise.


In this case they would be entitled to find out why it failed. The first thing I would want to know is why 2 have failed in a short time and could there be an underlying fault with the mower that's causing it.


Ride on mowers are hardly put under any pressure in a domestic situation so is it commercial, bumping up and down kerbs etc, not everything is as easy as just being inherent because its less than 6 months old.

wealdroam

bris wrote: »

Being 5 months old doesn't automatically give you the right to a remedy, misuse rules that out. 6 months just means its deemed inherent at purchase unless proven otherwise.


In this case they would be entitled to find out why it failed. The first thing I would want to know is why 2 have failed in a short time and could there be an underlying fault with the mower that's causing it.


Ride on mowers are hardly put under any pressure in a domestic situation so is it commercial, bumping up and down kerbs etc, not everything is as easy as just being inherent because its less than 6 months old.

And building on what Bris has said... if this mower part was not purchased by a consumer, then the 'six months issue' is irrelevant.

The whole of Part 5A of The Sale of Goods Act only applies when the buyer is a consumer.

ThumbRemote

Aquamania wrote: »

This issue is that it's becoming a habit on this board.

Also when a user posters a request for advice (particularly a brand new user), more often than not, follow up questions need to be asked to give appropriate advice as usually not all the necessary facts are initially given.

It's not a habit when it's multiple different users. It's merely coincidence.

You're not going to change it, so if you have a problem with it then stop reading.