Am i being unreasonable

[stevenatleven]

I bought a Oxygen E mate city last week because I liked the spec and the price deal won me over.

i have done 2 rides on the bike totaling about 60 miles. the bike rides fine and i am very pleased with it.
it is comfortable and the battery claims look like they are pretty accurate given i am a 100kg. My last ride
was 40 miles and there are still 3/4 bars showing from 6.

I have one issue with the bike, instead of Avid BB7 brakes it came with Tektro Novela,some of the reasons I bought the bike are the strong wheels (36 spoke 12g spokes) and the best mech brakes out there. I will use the
bike for hilly day rides here in Scotland and coming down the hills i have already seen nearly 40 mph.
The Novela does,nt get a great review and i am concerned that they may inadequate for my weight and fast
descent speeds.

i have been on to Oxygen for replacement Avids but they have now dropped them from the range and can,t
supply them, and can,t come up with anything other than return the bike. i have read on here that the MTB
brake they use the Auriga is a solid unit so i have asked for an upgrade to them.

Do you think I am being unreasonable asking for the brakes as specced or bearing in mind the offer price
was very reasonable just get on with it and use the brakes fitted ?

Always appreciate forum opinions

 

[jonathan75]

No you're not being unreasonable. It is up to the seller what price he wants to sell his goods at, as long as you weren't 'snapping up' an obviously mistakenly priced thing, then the specced goods are what he objectively sold and owes you. That's the rule -if you think it's too harsh on him then you're free to do what he wants, but you're also free to pay for the parts he left out and their fitting, and recoup the cost via Moneyclaim online, or small claims (he'll pay up before that most likely as soon as he realises you're serious). Your claim should only fail if there's an obvious pricing mistake, which I don't think there was.

You say the brakes were very important to you and it seems to me they were and are part of the bargain. The seller may have made a bad bargain for himself, but that's not the same as an obvious pricing mistake, or any mistake, and there appears to have been an objective appearance of an agreement to sell you those goods: the actual test of whether there was one in law. If there was one, and the other formalities were present (which they were) it's binding on both parties.

In sure I'm being legalistic and heartless but someone has to be and you're free to not claim what I think you're formally entitled to.

 

[trex]

I think it depends on whether you bought it from the website (mail order) or from the shop.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I think the opposite. It would be different if you had said that you were only ordering the bike because it had Tektro brakes. Rejecting a bike on the basis of a review of some brakes that you read on the internet is ridiculous. Indeed, we had a poster on here that said disc brakes were no good, so he's gone back to rim brakes. The question is, do they work? I'd be surprised if Tektro are any better. If you find that your braking is inadequate, you only need to change the front one to a hydraulic brake of choice, which you can find used on Ebay for £25 to £40. It's a 2 minute job to change it over.

To me, there's too many people claiming their rights instead of doing what's right. The world is becoming a worse place for it. How would you feel if you were the dealer, who would have paid at least the same price for the bikes from the Chinese supplier as he did before the change. It was probably a complete surprise that the brakes changed. Now he's got to change every broschure and listing because of all the guys that know their rights. How much time and cost do you think that takes? He's reduced his price to give you a bargain and you want to throw it back in his face. I think that's shameful.

I'm a firm believer in what goes round comes round. Whatever you decide, you have to face the consequences.

 

[stevenatleven]

Jonathon75 thanks for clearing up the legal position but I would,nt ever go that far.
Trex i bought it from the website of a shop
d8veh I was,nt rejecting the bike I am disappointed because I did,nt get the brakes that i wanted,and i asked if they would swap them out. i am delighted
with the bike other wise and have told them so. i know it is a easy
job to change out the brakes and will probably do so in the future

 

[Deleted member 4366]

That's made me feel a lot better. The big question still is whether your Novela brakes give you enough stopping power? I guess none of us have tried them, so we want to know from a genuine independent guy like you.

 

[trex]

I have used both.
The braking power of cable operated disc brakes is roughly proportional to the size of the pads. The BB7 pads are about the same size as Tektro Auriga's - 25% larger than the Novela's.

BB7's pads:

Novela's pads:

 

[Nealh]

It is unreasonable to ask for Hydraulic brakes as an upgrade with out paying the difference. if the mech disc brakes stop you at the mo and work then they are fine and fit for purpose. I doubt if decision to change the make of breaks would have been made with out due consideration.
The brakes suppied on all e-bikes should be adequate for stopping them at the legal speed however it is down to the rider if they derestrict the bike to go faster or goes gunho down hill hoping to stop on a six pence.

 

[trex]

Avid BB7s are cable operated, not hydraulic. In China, the price difference between BB7 and Novela is about $20 each.

 

[stevenatleven]

Thanks for all your opinions,i like most british folk don,t like to make a fuss but the bb7s were an important selling point for me
Nealh i should have made it clear when i asked for a hydraulic upgrade on the
brakes i asked if they would sell them to me at cost.
d8veh the novelas work fine and i will persevere with them and perhaps after
i have given them a good few hundred miles will post an opinion as i plan to
do with the whole bike

 

[Deleted member 4366]

That's great. Let us know if you want any help upgrading to hydraulic later. They're a lot better than any cable brake, and worth the extra expense, even if your cable brakes are adequate.

 

[RobF]

You hardly use the back, so don't worry about that.

An upgrade to Shimano hydraulic at the front is well worth it for £30.

If you are in luck, there may be a cut off on the back, which makes things even simpler - you only need one.

 

[jonathan75]

D8veh that was a good post you made and I agree with most of it but I just wanted to clarify a couple of things.

I think the opposite. It would be different if you had said that you were only ordering the bike because it had Tektro brakes. Rejecting a bike on the basis of a review of some brakes that you read on the internet is ridiculous. .

Yes you're right it would be ridiculous, and you put it well. However it was the store rather than the buyer who insisted that taking the bike back was the only thing that could be done. Rejection of the goods is indeed a completely inappropriate thing and it's not his legal right because it's a small issue. His legal right really is just his being owed the difference in value (if any) between the brakes he paid for and the ones he got.

The question is, do they work? I'd be surprised if Tektro are any better.

If they're the same then I completely agree with you. If they're worse then there's still a problem - the guy got £10, £20, £30 less goods than was advertised.

To me, there's too many people claiming their rights instead of doing what's right.

That's a perfectly good point, however most people don't know their rights. I think it's independently morally valuable that people know their rights, so they can make an informed choice about what they think is right and wrong, and whether they want to enforce their legal rights. 9 times out of 10, if their legal rights are unreasonable to enforce, then they're not actually their legal rights. As you say - if the brakes are as good as the ones ordered, then there isn't a right to the ones ordered. That would be thrown out of court on the grounds that it's a trifle. Getting much worse brakes is not a trifle.

The world is becoming a worse place for it.

Again, sounds reasonable but the solution isn't to not tell people about their legal rights. I don't see anything valuable about ignorance, which often results in people being taken advantage of.

How would you feel if you were the dealer, who would have paid at least the same price for the bikes from the Chinese supplier as he did before the change. It was probably a complete surprise that the brakes changed. Now he's got to change every broschure and listing because of all the guys that know their rights. How much time and cost do you think that takes?

Yes editing an online listing isn't that much work. Brochures can have a sticker placed on them. People do it. But if the brakes are the same quality then he only needs to tell people each time he makes a sale, if then. If they're worse quality then the risk shouldn't lie with the consumer. It really lies with the retailer or commercial wholesaler and the quality of contract he has with the wholesaler: that's between him and them.

He's reduced his price to give you a bargain and you want to throw it back in his face. I think that's shameful.

No he hasn't, I'm sorry this is just wrong. He's reduced his price to make a sale, not to make customers happier or out of any kind of altruistic goodness. He is responsible for his decision or omission in leaving the spec the same.

I'm a firm believer in what goes round comes round. Whatever you decide, you have to face the consequences.

Absolutely.