Ethical question regarding a bike purchase

[scottcw2]

I purchased a steel frame/fork from another forum member a few months ago. I recently contacted the builder to inquire what steel was used. He answered my question promptly.

Today the builder emailed and asked me to call him. When I did, he told me that he looked back at his records and noted that the original owner (who I bought it from) had an accident with the bike that bent the fork. It was sent back to the builder and he was able to straighten it. He feels it is safe to ride, but wanted me to be aware of the issue and cautioned me to watch for cracks or signs of fatigue.

The person I purchased the frame from never mentioned this issue. My questions are...

Would you ride the fork given that the builder straightened it and feels it is safe?

Would you ever sell a bike that had a repair like this without mentioning the issue to the buyer?

As a buyer, would you contact the seller and request that they at least split the cost of a new fork?

[Ray]

I would not sell it without disclosing that it had been crashed, bent, and repaired. That's not cool, IMHO.

That said, if the builder said the fork was OK to ride and was conscientious enough to tell you and talk to you about it, I'd think it would be fine to ride. What the seller did (or didn't do, in this case) was wrong. Given your situation today, though, it sounds like you have a good frame and fork. If you're not satisfied with the purchase based on this and you want to ask the seller to take it back, go for it. But, assuming he's not willing to, I'd go ahead and ride it, enjoy it, and out him if you think you should. But certainly give him the chance to make it right first.

-Ray

[zmudshark]

Obviously a reputable builder.

If the builder did the repair, and feels that it is safe to ride, what's the problem?

As far as disclosure, it's not an eBay bike, but something you got from a forum member. He should have disclosed it, IMO, or just sold it on eBay to whomever.

As far as splitting the cost of a new fork, not enough info is given.

Is it a custom fork that cost $$$ and can't be replaced off the shelf? Have you noticed any problems? Would you have known there was something amiss if the builder hadn't contacted you?

I would like to think that sales on this forum have a higher level of trust than eBay. I wouldn't sell here without full disclosure, eBay, maybe...if safety wasn't an issue, and it doesn't appear to be.

That being said, I've seen some shady deals go down here.

[malcolm]

If the builder is someone whose opinion I trust I would do as he says.

I would never sell something that had been damaged without disclosing that fact

I would probably contact the guy, if for nothing else just to see what he has to say.

Kudos to the builder

[slugbottle]

with Ray +1

[Elefantino]

If the builder says it's safe to ride but wants you to watch for signs of cracks or fatigue, I'd feel less than comfortable, but then that's just me. The "safe" part is fine. The "cracks or fatigue" part is not. That said, everyone who rides should check their bikes for signs of cracks or fatigue, right?

AFA the deal, the seller was uncool and deserves a nice but stern e-mail. I think if he/she/it populates this place often, they'll see this post and get the message, too.

[ChipRI]

- Based on the advice of the builder and because the fork is steel, I think it's safe to ride - with frequent inspections for signs of stress. If it were carbon or aluminum I would be more concerned.

- If it were mine to sell, I would have detailed the situation to prospective buyers and offered the frame at prices with or without the fork at the buyer's discretion.

- The last question is the toughest. The answer, I think, depends to some extent on how long ago you made the purchase. If you've had the bike a while and been putting the miles on without any problems, I think it becomes harder to seek recourse. That's not to say you shouldn't at least let the seller know you're disappointed in the way things were handled.

[rnhood]

If you like the bike, get a new fork. Even though the fork would probably not fail in a catastrophic manner since its steel, the mental thought of always having to check and wonder about it's condition would not sit so well with me. Of course we're all different.

If you don't care for the bike, get a new fork anyway. You will have a tough time selling that bike with a repaired fork, especially when the builder will tell the prospective buyer the same thing - watch for preliminary signs of failure.

[Lifelover]

It's hard to debate the the seller should have mentioned that the fork had been repaired by the original builder in the ad.

That said, if I sent a fork to a reputable builder for repair, I would only want it back if it could be ridden pretty much without restrictions. If the "check it statement" was simply a CYA disclaimer I could see myself not giving it a second thought. If I owned and rode the bike (post repair) for a long time, I could see it slipping my mind if I were to sell it. However, I'm not a detail oriented person. It would be interesting to see the original ad. If the seller went into details about other aspects I would fell like he may have deceived me. If it was listed very generic with geo info, pics and an overall condition, I would assume the best not the worst.

If it were mine I would ride it like you stole it.

[bagochips3]

I don't think it matters if it was sold here or on eBay or Craig's List or anywhere else. The seller should have disclosed it.

[martinrjensen]

Did you ask if the bike had been damaged previously in any way? I am assuming you did not as you would't be asking this here now. Did he imply in any way that the frame had never been repaired? If he didn't and you didn't ask, I think that another used item went through a sale, situation normal.
I mean if it's not wrapped in plastic, it's used and these are things you have to ask, again I am assuming you didn't . (If you did, and he didn't tell the truth, it changes everything).

That being said, there is a certian amount of implied trust on this forum and I think etiquette would require the sellor to tell you in this case, but bottom line someone who is selling something is under no requirement to disclose things that are not asked (unless previously specified somewhere). Seeing as the fork was professionally repaired, he could have had every reason to consider the fork good as new.
But I'm a little concerned about the builder telling you to look for cracks,....if I fixed a part but had to tell the person to check for breaks for the remainder of it's life, I don't think I would consider it roadworthy, especially considering the job a fork has. Maybe he meant a one time thing i.e. check for cracks, if none found it's, fine and you don't need to check again unless you smack it or something I could buy that.

[scottcw2]

- The last question is the toughest. The answer, I think, depends to some extent on how long ago you made the purchase. If you've had the bike a while and been putting the miles on without any problems, I think it becomes harder to seek recourse. That's not to say you shouldn't at least let the seller know you're disappointed in the way things were handled.

Actually, I have never ridden the bike. I took it to my LBS this past week to have it built up.

[scottcw2]

Maybe he meant a one time thing i.e. check for cracks, if none found it's, fine and you don't need to check again unless you smack it or something I could buy that.

More like, "I think it is safe, I've straightened worse and they have never failed, but keep a look out for cracks and don't ride it if you ever see any."

[bironi]

Ray's advice is sound. I crashed a mid 70's Medici a year plus back. I had the top tube and the down tube replaced by my very talented local builder. The steel fork was also bent. He was able to straighten the fork, and I have been riding the bike for several months. It is still my favorite ride.

I would trust the builder, but would definitely let the seller know that full disclosure is the ethical thing to do.

Byron

[Walter]

"Safe to ride, but watch for cracks or fatigue" is not the same as the same as an unbent, uncrashed fork...which what was represented by omission.

I would have your "forgetful" seller pay a large part of a new fork (complete). I would also probably out them here to avoid others being taken advantage of.

[eddief]

that had been in an accident and the repair was done so well it was not detectable, without being asked, would you reveal it had been in an accident? i doubt it.

when i bought my used bimmer a couple of years ago, it looked perfect to me. i took to a shop to have it checked out prior to purchase. they had a tool to measure paint thickness and told me it had been in a wreck, but had been repaired expertly. that was a bit of a turnoff, but not enough to stop the train that had left the station.

if the fork looked fine and had a clean bill of health from an expert, then i'd have let it be. if the buyer asked about accidents and repair, and the seller did not reveal, then i'd be pissed if i found out afterward. don't ask, don't tell?

[Sandy]

1. Ethics should remain constant no matter where an item is sold.

2. In presenting frames/framesets for sale on this forum almost all here are sure to point out nicks and small superficial imperfections. In your instance, the fork was actually bent and had to be sent back to the builder for repair. That is of a much greater magnitude than just nicks or superficial imperfections. Clearly, you should have been told of such so that you could make a decision prior to the sale.

3. The builder was especially nice in contacting you. He stated that the fork was safe, but then gave a qualifier in saying that you should watch for cracks or signs of fatigue. Perhaps he is saying that for his own protection (most reasonable to do so), but nevertheless it was stated, which places in your mind some doubt.

4. Ask yourself if you would have bought the frameset at the price you did or would have bought it at all, knowing what you now know.

5. Perhaps the seller thought that since the fork was repaired, there was no need to convey that information, but clearly there was not full disclosure, and that is not acceptable, especially about a significant issue like a bent fork, needing repair.

6. Each person makes his or her own analysis, but if I were you, I would contact the seller, tell him or her that full disclosure was not made, and would insist upon some acceptable remedy to you, whatever that is- lowered sale price, different fork, money towards a new fork, whatever. If not acceptable to you, I would then have him or her refund you the money for the sale and you send him the frameset back.

7. It is the sellers obligation to remedy the situation as there was not full disclosure at time of sale.


Sandy

[scottcw2]

that had been in an accident and the repair was done so well it was not detectable, without being asked, would you reveal it had been in an accident? i doubt it.

There are several databases that you can find out if a car has been in an accident and been repaired. There is no such database for bikes.

[scottcw2]

4. Ask yourself if you would have bought the frameset at the price you did or would have bought it at all, knowing what you now know.

I probably would not have bought it at all, but, if I did, I would have paid a lot less calculating the cost of a new fork ($500).

[zmudshark]

I don't think it matters if it was sold here or on eBay or Craig's List or anywhere else. The seller should have disclosed it.

Have you bought off CL or eBay before?

Reality, my friend.

Sometimes it sucks.

[zmudshark]

I probably would not have bought it at all, but, if I did, I would have paid a lot less calculating the cost of a new fork ($500).


Well, a $500 fork does shed a bit of light on the situation.

How long ago did you buy the bike?

Any issues so far?

etc...

[Lifelover]

The more I think about this the more I question the builder.

Either the damn thing is ridable or it's not. There should be no in between when dealing with a fork. If the builders feels the fork should have a disclaimer included with it, than he should not have repaired it.

Considering the OP stated that he got the email and made the call today, I suspect the builder is not at the NAHBS.

[giordana93]

The more I think about this the more I question the builder.

Either the damn thing is ridable or it's not. There should be no in between when dealing with a fork. If the builders feels the fork should have a disclaimer included with it, than he should not have repaired it.

Considering the OP stated that he got the email and made the call today, I suspect the builder is not at the NAHBS.

yeah, it's obviously the builder's fault that some douche bag sold a wrecked frame as non-wrecked, and that he (builder) can only say for sure that it's probably ok. because he didn't do an MRI on the damned thing. or some kind of stress test (like for our hearts or our banks). you bend a metal/steel part. you bend it back. will it break? maybe. does it have 200,000 cycles or 20 k?
don't blame the builder. he was already underpaid in the first place; steel can be repaired probably without issue. that was his valid response.

on the other hand, not to have said anything about this, is, on the seller's part, totally unacceptable. analogy: well, you never told me you had a contagious STD, now I've got X!......--well, you never asked. sorry, I know a good doctor.... don't blame the builder. he was certainly not paid for this consultancy work that was no doubt pro bono. just my .02

[Liberace]

I think the builder may not have been a member of this forum until well after the sale occurred. He may have just been searching the site to see if any of his bikes had been discussed here and happened upon the ad.

[scottcw2]

I think the builder may not have been a member of this forum until well after the sale occurred. He may have just been searching the site to see if any of his bikes had been discussed here and happened upon the ad.

I never said the builder was a member of this site. I contacted him post sale to ask a couple of questions about the frame. He then remembered the bent fork and proactively contacted me.

[scottcw2]

Considering the OP stated that he got the email and made the call today, I suspect the builder is not at the NAHBS.

Not sure what that means, but the builder is a highly regarded one man shop. I don't care if he goes to NAHBS or NAACP or NAFTA.

[martinrjensen]

snipped...
on the other hand, not to have said anything about this, is, on the seller's part, totally unacceptable. ....
Personally, I think that all "used" sales are unique and most of the time, it is up to the buyer to know exactly what he /she is buying and ask appropriate questions.

[dagator]

I know this won’t be a very popular post. But here goes. First off I wouldn’t sell bike without fully disclosing its history. So don’t flame me. I have bought many bikes online they are a grab bag. Most have been great--- but not all. If you are buying a used bike that is what you get—a USED bike, not a new one. Most bikes that are ridden hard and have been raced have a high probability of going down. DUH

Common law states “BUYER BEWARE”

I have a few question for you, did the ad state that the bike had never been crashed? That the bike had never been repaired, if so it was misrepresented. If not it wasn’t.

Now here is the personal reasonability part--- did you ask those questions? If not, why not? Did you have the bike inspected when you got it? Did you brag to your buds about this great deal you got? My Dad always told me if something is too good to be true it must likely is.

If the bike was falsely disclosed to you it should be made right. If not--- Wake up naïve one the seller owes you nothing. Maybe, you can learn something through this.

I’m sure you were enjoying the bike just fine until you received the bad news. So get back in the saddle and enjoy. If you think it needs a new fork. I’m sure you can pick up a used one cheap online.

[weaponsgrade]

I agree that seller should've told you - regardless of whether you asked or not. I don't know what the disclosure rules are for used goods, but certainly for houses there are laws stating that the seller is required to disclose all known material facts - i.e., anything that would reasonably affect buyer's decision to purchase. I certainly think a crashed and bent-back fork - especially when the seller had personal, firsthand knowledge - is something that qualifies as material.

[scottcw2]

I know this won’t be a very popular post. But here goes. First off I wouldn’t sell bike without fully disclosing its history. So don’t flame me. I have bought many bikes online they are a grab bag. Most have been great--- but not all. If you are buying a used bike that is what you get—a USED bike, not a new one. Most bikes that are ridden hard and have been raced have a high probability of going down. DUH

Common law states “BUYER BEWARE”

I have a few question for you, did the ad state that the bike had never been crashed? That the bike had never been repaired, if so it was misrepresented. If not it wasn’t.

Now here is the personal reasonability part--- did you ask those questions? If not, why not? Did you have the bike inspected when you got it? Did you brag to your buds about this great deal you got? My Dad always told me if something is too good to be true it must likely is.

If the bike was falsely disclosed to you it should be made right. If not--- Wake up naïve one the seller owes you nothing. Maybe, you can learn something through this.

I’m sure you were enjoying the bike just fine until you received the bad news. So get back in the saddle and enjoy. If you think it needs a new fork. I’m sure you can pick up a used one cheap online.

Nice first post. When you have contributed some more you will come to realize that this is a community, not a bunch of people looking to hide behind "common law."

Also, if you read the entire thread, you would see that I have never ridden the bike so I can't "get back in the saddle" since I have never been in the saddle on this bike.

To answer your question, the seller said the bike was in "immaculate condition." To me, no frame that has had a fork bent and straightened could ever be represented as immaculate. The only thing the seller mentioned was that he rode it for a few hundred miles and then decided he didn't like the color, so he sent it back to the builder to have it re-painted.

BTW... the builder recalls that the fork was bent from being on a car rack, not a riding accident.

Welcome to the forum... :rolleyes:

[Sandy]

Nice first post. When you have contributed some more you will come to realize that this is a community, not a bunch of people looking to hide behind "common law."

Also, if you read the entire thread, you would see that I have never ridden the bike so I can't "get back in the saddle" since I have never been in the saddle on this bike.

To answer your question, the seller said the bike was in "immaculate condition." To me, no frame that has had a fork bent and straightened could ever be represented as immaculate. The only thing the seller mentioned was that he rode it for a few hundred miles and then decided he didn't like the color, so he sent it back to the builder to have it re-painted.

BTW... the builder recalls that the fork was bent from being on a car rack, not a riding accident.

Welcome to the forum... :rolleyes:

Didn't know he said that it was in "immaculate condition". That goes beyond lack of full disclosure. That, to me, is deceptive, at best.

We of course have not heard from the seller, but you certainly seem to be telling it as it happened.


Sandy

[Ray]

Who knows whether what the seller did was legal or not? There's probably no specific law for this kind of thing, and if there is, its probably too small to prosecute/collect on. The bottom line is that what the seller did was unethical, regardless of the legality and regardless whether the buyer asked all of the right questions. If the money has changed hands, the buyer is probably screwed, but has two options if he wants to pursue them, probably sequentially:

1. Contact the seller. Express displeasure. Ask for refund or help with cost of new fork. If the seller makes good, wonderful. But if the seller is the type of guy to sell a damaged frameset as "immaculate", the buyer is probably SOL here.

2. Out the guy. Make a stink. This a) helps assure that nobody else is victimized by the seller again, at least without fair warning, and b) it probably slightly discourages others from trying the same stunt. It would be good to do this even if the seller does make good on a full or partial refund, just so nobody else gets burned, but since the threat of going public is probably your only real leverage, you should probably agree not to do so if he makes good.

I think that's all you can reasonably do. A lawsuit is likely way more expensive than the cost of the fork, so not worth it unless you have big bucks and are just interested in the principle (al?) of the thing.

BTW, you said the fork was damaged on a roof rack, not through a crash. Sounds like the typical eff-up of driving into a garage with the bike still on the roof. That, sir, is a CRASH! With the continued power of a car engine even after the impact for a second or two, its probably more of a crash than you'd be likely to have just going down on the road unless you hit a curb or tree or something at speed. Did that to an old mtb and a kid's bike once and, amazingly, the rack was ripped off of the roof and the car was pretty well dented and scratched, but the bikes were fine. That's not the usual outcome!

-Ray

[jpw]

I purchased a steel frame/fork from another forum member a few months ago. I recently contacted the builder to inquire what steel was used. He answered my question promptly.

Today the builder emailed and asked me to call him. When I did, he told me that he looked back at his records and noted that the original owner (who I bought it from) had an accident with the bike that bent the fork. It was sent back to the builder and he was able to straighten it. He feels it is safe to ride, but wanted me to be aware of the issue and cautioned me to watch for cracks or signs of fatigue.

The person I purchased the frame from never mentioned this issue. My questions are...

Would you ride the fork given that the builder straightened it and feels it is safe?

Would you ever sell a bike that had a repair like this without mentioning the issue to the buyer?

As a buyer, would you contact the seller and request that they at least split the cost of a new fork?

I wouldn't have sold it that way, if only to protect myself from being taken to the cleaners by your lawyer after your fatigue induced crash.

[Peter P.]

Did anyone consider the seller may have just plain forgotten about the fork being bent? The damage could have been so minor as to be forgettable, which could be backed up by the theory that the builder didn't hesitate to choose to straighten it. I have frames with "colored" histories and I'm sure if I were to tell their stories now, I would forget some things.

The builder is clearly a good businessman who's passionate about his work as well as willing to deliver exceptional customer service as witnessed by the follow up call.

I'd trust the builder's judgement to not worry about the fork.

I had a frame built where I spec'd a fork with too much rake. I didn't like the way the bike handled. I called the builder figuring he would have to install new fork blades, at my expense of course. Instead, he told me to bring the fork down. He merely bent the blades to reduce the rake and charged me twenty bucks. He never told me to worry about anything and the bike rode great for several years until it was stolen. I hope it breaks while the thief is riding it, though!

Same framebuilder: I was hit by a car riding a frame not built by this same frame repairman. The seat tube was buckled near the BB. I figured the seat tube would have to be replaced. Again, the framebuilder straightened the frame, somehow removing the puckers in the tube at the kink, and repainted it. That was maybe five years ago (see how I can't recall the exact date?) and the frame rides beautifully.

If you're really concerned, call the seller and be courteous but mention what the builder told you and see if he's forthcoming with an answer. It will tell you about the character of the seller, but still don't think you have to worry about the frame.

[Ti Designs]

Also, if you read the entire thread, you would see that I have never ridden the bike so I can't "get back in the saddle" since I have never been in the saddle on this bike.

There's far too much of that going around here...

[capybaras]

There's far too much of that going around here...

You should sell pedal-powered computers. :bike:

[kestrel]

Fleabay, a bike forum, CL, doesn't matter, integrity is just that, INTEGRITY. When listing, look at it as if you were the purchaser, what truths or untruths would you expect in a "For Sale" ad?

Your position at this point indicates you will probably contact the seller, I think he will have two options for reply:

1. If the seller honestly forgot to include the details of a fork fix, then my guess is once you ask about it, the seller will offer to make a deal. (I tend to believe this will be the case, otherwise he wouldn't have been so open about the builder's recent work on the bike.)
2. If the seller was trying to cover up the fork work, I think he'll blow you off when approached on the subject. Something like, "It was repaired professionally, good as new, why bother to disclose such an action?

Bottom line: It doesn't matter what we think, do what will make you feel comfortable about this purchase and move on from there.

[djg]

I don't know -- this plainly is unhappy, which may in itself speak in favor of copious disclosure -- but I suppose I'd want to know more about the particulars, including the builder's assessment and the nature of his caution. The mere fact that a steel fork has been cold set does not make it an accident waiting to happen, right? So if it's been back to the builder for rehab and a respray, and it's been given a clean bill of health, is it good as new or damaged goods? Honestly, I don't know, but it's possible that it's completely fine, isn't it?

One one occasion that I can recall, I sold a bike (about 25 years ago) with a steel fork that had been reset after a crash. I was told that the fork was fine by the person who did the repair. I told the buyer what had happened, although I think I did so in person when he came to ride the bike, rather than in the ad.

[Ray]

Did anyone consider the seller may have just plain forgotten about the fork being bent? The damage could have been so minor as to be forgettable, which could be backed up by the theory that the builder didn't hesitate to choose to straighten it.
I can believe it wasn't all that serious and will probably ride great for years to come. But I have trouble believing that a seller would FORGET about damage significant enough that he had to send the fork back to the builder to fix. He may have thought it wasn't a big enough deal to mention, but I think that's a really poor call. It should be up to the buyer to decide how important it was - he could have called the builder to find out if it was OK to ride BEFORE he bought the frame.

All I can do is judge it by my own standards. I'd never sell a frame without disclosing where the little nicks and scratches are, let alone a repair of that magnitude. I might not put every detail in the original ad, but I always disclose everything possible to any interested parties before they commit to a purchase. And, from the buyers perspective, I'd be righteously pissed if I bought a frame and found out later about something like that. No matter how honestly reassuring the builder was.

In any case, I think the OP has plenty of opinions to go on.

-Ray

[Lifelover]

Did anyone consider the seller may have just plain forgotten about the fork being bent? ....
+1
....
That said, if I sent a fork to a reputable builder for repair, I would only want it back if it could be ridden pretty much without restrictions. If the "check it statement" was simply a CYA disclaimer I could see myself not giving it a second thought. If I owned and rode the bike (post repair) for a long time, I could see it slipping my mind if I were to sell it. .....

1. Ethics should remain constant no matter where an item is sold.


The responsibility for the buyer of used items remains the same no matter where an item is sold.


Nice first post. When you have contributed some more you will come to realize that this is a community, not a bunch of people looking to hide behind "common law."

Also, if you read the entire thread, you would see that I have never ridden the bike so I can't "get back in the saddle" since I have never been in the saddle on this bike.

To answer your question, the seller said the bike was in "immaculate condition." To me, no frame that has had a fork bent and straightened could ever be represented as immaculate. The only thing the seller mentioned was that he rode it for a few hundred miles and then decided he didn't like the color, so he sent it back to the builder to have it re-painted.

When I read the whole thread I get the feeling that there are established people of the "community" that don't have the same response to the situation as you. Don't assume that everyone here thinks like you.

To me, a frame that was damaged, sent to the original builder for repair and repaint, could very easily be considered immaculate.


It is pretty clear you are not going to be happy with the bike. I can't imagine you paid enough for it to justify a $500 rebate. At best the seller may consider refunding your purchase price minus and shipping. If the transaction is more than a month or so old, I would not expect that, regardless if you choose to use the bike or not during that time.

[rwsaunders]

I recently sold a used bike computer locally on CL, but the buyer happened to be in Ohio, so I shipped the unit. About four months later, he contacted me and indicated that the unit wasn't working properly, and the reason for the delayed response was that he just installed the unit.

He commented that perhaps it was his fault for not wiring the unit properly, or perhaps it was the chance that he took in buying a used unit. I emailed him a copy of the manual from the Shimano website, and told him that if he couldn't get it to work at that point, I would buy it back. I didn't really need the bad Karma out there, even if he was a Browns fan and I knew the unit worked fine. I also knew that the unit could be sold again and it wasn't worth the hassling with the gent for $40.

I got an email two days later thanking me for the manual and he indicated that the unit was working well. He had missed two key steps in the set-up and the manual saved his rear end. At the end of the day we both felt good.

My take on the frame story......the seller needs to take the frame back, provide a discount if the buyer is wiling to keep the frame, or offer a new fork perhaps. If the builder didn't think that the repaired fork was a big deal, then the seller should have been able to provide this information to the prospective buyer. If the seller makes good in some manner to the buyer, then no outing. If not, it will be interesting.

[Sandy]

+1




The responsibility for the buyer of used items remains the same no matter where an item is sold.




When I read the whole thread I get the feeling that there are established people of the "community" that don't have the same response to the situation as you. Don't assume that everyone here thinks like you.

To me, a frame that was damaged, sent to the original builder for repair and repaint, could very easily be considered immaculate.


It is pretty clear you are not going to be happy with the bike. I can't imagine you paid enough for it to justify a $500 rebate. At best the seller may consider refunding your purchase price minus and shipping. If the transaction is more than a month or so old, I would not expect that, regardless if you choose to use the bike or not during that time.


I mentioned that ethics should be the same no matter where the bike is being sold because there was at least one comment here stating that he or she (not scott) would tend to be more likely to more fully disclosure the condition on the Serotta Forum Classified than elsewhere.

Immaculate has at least an implied understanding that it is very close to as good as new condition. How can the seller really say that? If there was an accident with the bike on a car rack as the builder seemd to recall, one might even wonder about the frame itself, relative to alignment or other damage.


Sandy

[dannyg1]

A $500 fork? What could that possibly be, a bi-plane Sachs?

[Lifelover]

I mentioned that ethics should be the same no matter where the bike is being sold because there was at least one comment here stating that he or she (not scott) would tend to be more likely to more fully disclosure the condition on the Serotta Forum Classified than elsewhere.

Immaculate has at least an implied understanding that it is very close to as good as new condition. How can the seller really say that? If there was an accident with the bike on a car rack as the builder seemd to recall, one might even wonder about the frame itself, relative to alignment or other damage.


Sandy

Classic case of us only having one side of the story when there are at least 3 sides. Seller, buyer and Builder.

For me, the most important missing part is how the builder represented the repair to the original owner. If he made it clear that the repair still left reason for concern, than the seller should have NEVER omitted that. If he did not, than I could see the seller not thinking it pertinent.

It would not surprise me at all if the builder presented it to both parties exactly the same but their interoperation differed totally.

Communication is a very tough thing. Since the builder painted it and sent it out in the world, I assume it's safe to ride without restriction.

The frame is in the size range that would fit allot of folks. Maybe the the seller and buyer should agree that it get reposted for sale and they split the difference (if any) in the sale price.

[capybaras]

2. In presenting frames/framesets for sale on this forum almost all here are sure to point out nicks and small superficial imperfections. In your instance, the fork was actually bent and had to be sent back to the builder for repair. That is of a much greater magnitude than just nicks or superficial imperfections. Clearly, you should have been told of such so that you could make a decision prior to the sale.
Sandy

Excellent point.

[Sandy]

Classic case of us only having one side of the story when there are at least 3 sides. Seller, buyer and Builder.

For me, the most important missing part is how the builder represented the repair to the original owner. If he made it clear that the repair still left reason for concern, than the seller should have NEVER omitted that. If he did not, than I could see the seller not thinking it pertinent.

It would not surprise me at all if the builder presented it to both parties exactly the same but their interoperation differed totally.

Communication is a very tough thing. Since the builder painted it and sent it out in the world, I assume it's safe to ride without restriction.

The frame is in the size range that would fit allot of folks. Maybe the the seller and buyer should agree that it get reposted for sale and they split the difference (if any) in the sale price.

The problem is that the buyer found out about the bent fork after the sale and only because the buyer called the builder to find out what steel was used in the bike. The seller should have communicated that, not the builder. The communication should have been prior to the sale. That is my opinion.

I do agree that we have only heard one side of the buyer/seller interaction.


Sandy

[paczki]

Classic case of us only having one side of the story when there are at least 3 sides. Seller, buyer and Builder.

For me, the most important missing part is how the builder represented the repair to the original owner. If he made it clear that the repair still left reason for concern, than the seller should have NEVER omitted that. If he did not, than I could see the seller not thinking it pertinent.

It would not surprise me at all if the builder presented it to both parties exactly the same but their interoperation differed totally.

Communication is a very tough thing. Since the builder painted it and sent it out in the world, I assume it's safe to ride without restriction.

The frame is in the size range that would fit allot of folks. Maybe the the seller and buyer should agree that it get reposted for sale and they split the difference (if any) in the sale price.

It couldn't be a simpler thing. You have a bent fork, you tell the buyer. It's incumbent on you to remember it, and to give redress if you did forget it.
You have to be rigorous about these things, otherwise you start letting yourself off the hook whenever it serves your interest and you become an asshole.

[scottcw2]

When I read the whole thread I get the feeling that there are established people of the "community" that don't have the same response to the situation as you. Don't assume that everyone here thinks like you.

To me, a frame that was damaged, sent to the original builder for repair and repaint, could very easily be considered immaculate.

You are correct, and I would never buy from those people. I doubt others who have read this thread will either.

[scottcw2]

There's far too much of that going around here...

Not sure if you are referring to not reading an entire thread before responding or not "being in the saddle."

I agree the former happens far too much, but not just here.

If the latter, I have other bikes I ride.

[paczki]

It couldn't be a simpler thing. You have a bent fork, you tell the buyer. It's incumbent on you to remember it, and to give redress if you did forget it.
You have to be rigorous about these things, otherwise you start letting yourself off the hook whenever it serves your interest and you become an asshole.

BTW I love how the site censors jew, as in "I was raised a jew and went to Hebrew school until I was 12," but not asshole.

EDIT: It was fixed! I'm finally free to say jew! Hallelujah!

[scottcw2]

All I can do is judge it by my own standards. I'd never sell a frame without disclosing where the little nicks and scratches are, let alone a repair of that magnitude. I might not put every detail in the original ad, but I always disclose everything possible to any interested parties before they commit to a purchase. And, from the buyers perspective, I'd be righteously pissed if I bought a frame and found out later about something like that. No matter how honestly reassuring the builder was.

In any case, I think the OP has plenty of opinions to go on.

-Ray

I would happily buy a bike from you. I agree that mentioning it in the original ad is not necessary as it might quell interest. But it should absolutely be disclosed prior to money changing hands.

[djg21]

Were I you, I'd demand a full refund.

What the seller did was not just unethical, but it amounted to a fraud by omission. He was obligated to disclose to you information that would have been material to your purchasing decision, and he obviously attempted to withhold that information in his effort to induce you to purchase the bike. This would be even more the case if you explicitly asked if the bike had previously been crashed, as you presumably did before agreeing to make the purchase.

I'd make clear to the seller that should he not provide a full refund with a reasonable time, I'd post his contact information on this forum, and every other bicycle forum you can. If the seller lives in your state, I'd also consider small claims court (I'm presuming the cost of the bike was below the applicable jurisdictional limit).

As a practical matter, if the seller failed to disclose his accident and the resulting repair to the fork, what else did he fail to tell you? Why would you want to ride the thing? It is interesting that the frame builder, who owed you no duty, felt obligated to apprise you of the damage to the bike, whereas the seller did not.

If you do opt to keep the bike, you should at least receive a concession in the price and partial refund.

Frankly, your seller is pond scum, and I'd really like to know who he is so I can avoid interacting with him.

[Lifelover]

It couldn't be a simpler thing. You have a bent fork, you tell the buyer. It's incumbent on you to remember it, and to give redress if you did forget it.
You have to be rigorous about these things, otherwise you start letting yourself off the hook whenever it serves your interest and you become an asshole.

What this thread shows more than anything, is that allot of us have vastly differing opinions. It is one of the main reasons I have never sold anything on this or any other forum. It's not worth the drama. While I have bought quite a bit, I have never assumed anything about the product's overall condition without asking.

My opinions of the transaction is not so much of a moral issue as it is an "anxious" issue. I could have received a repaired frame/fork from a builder of this caliber and never given it's durability a second thought.

I understand that it hard for some folks to compute, but I may not have thought to mention it unless asked.

[paczki]

I have never assumed anything about the product's overall condition without asking.

"Immaculate"? That's an inquiry-stopper. It effectively means, you need ask no further questions.

Sorry, this is pretty simple.

[NRRider]

If I were a cynic I could think the builder may have been pondering "hey, if I make this lightweight CYA warning about the fork I'll not only be covering my butt, I may just sell the guy a new fork". We're in a recession after all.

I don't know, if the seller is like many others on this forum, selling frames as often as he changes underwear (meaning quite often, I hope), he may have forgotten about the damage. If he was hiding it that's pretty messed up.

Hopefully your contact with him will resolve it. Obviously from the responses here there's no "right" answer, but you do need to contact him and see what he says. Given the amount involved, practically speaking your recourse is pretty much limited making a stink on this forum unless you don't put a big value on your time.

[scottcw2]

Unfortunately, I didn't keep the seller's email info after the sale and they do not allow email through the forum. I have sent a PM, but no response.

[djg21]

Unfortunately, I didn't keep the seller's email info after the sale and they do not allow email through the forum. I have sent a PM, but no response.


Maybe you should post the information you do have? Someone is likely to know who he is.

[alancw3]

Unfortunately, I didn't keep the seller's email info after the sale and they do not allow email through the forum. I have sent a PM, but no response.

i think you can go the the member list and send an email to the seller that way. it is like a blind email. this is different from a private message.

[Ken Robb]

i think you can go the the member list and send an email to the seller that way. it is like a blind email. this is different from a private message.

maybe/maybe not. Accepting email through the forum is optional.

[martinrjensen]

Were I you, I'd demand a full refund.

What the seller did was not just unethical, but it amounted to a fraud by omission. He was obligated to disclose to you information that would have been material to your purchasing decision, and he obviously attempted to withhold that information in his effort to induce you to purchase the bike.
If the sellor in in business of making a living selling used parts, you might (just might) have a point. If this was just a case of an individual selling to another individual, the sellor is under absolutely no obligation to do anything except say "I have x for sale. It's up to the buyer to ask. That's it.

I am leaving the ethical part of this question out of my answer because they are 2 separate parts and I would agree with you on ethical grounds, but ethics does not govern used sales. It's totally the buyers job to know what he's buying.

[rugbysecondrow]

Maybe you should post the information you do have? Someone is likely to know who he is.

I very strongly disagree. With the strong feelings and notions folks have expressed regarding this "issue" with only one side of the story told, the other party should not be brought into the discussion like this. This is a business transaction between these parties and that is how it should be resolved, PERIOD. Frankly, it is not our business who it is and I don't think we should turn this discussion forum into a witch hunt for people disgruntled about transactions.

I agree that there should be honesty in our transactions and I would disclose anything I knew about an item before I sold it and I would also carry that into the future if something I sold was determined to have been damaged. That said, we can discuss the ethics of disclosure, but this is not a dispute resolution forum. Take care of those things off-line and caveat emptor.

If you must make a disclosure, find the ad in the CLASSIFIED forum and post an update to the sale. That will bump it to the top of the list and also get some attention.

[scottcw2]

What this thread shows more than anything, is that allot of us have vastly differing opinions. It is one of the main reasons I have never sold anything on this or any other forum. It's not worth the drama.

So... ethics = drama? Interesting.

[gdw]

Is this the frame that was made in Minneapolis?

[rugbysecondrow]

Nice first post. When you have contributed some more you will come to realize that this is a community, not a bunch of people looking to hide behind "common law."

Also, if you read the entire thread, you would see that I have never ridden the bike so I can't "get back in the saddle" since I have never been in the saddle on this bike.

To answer your question, the seller said the bike was in "immaculate condition." To me, no frame that has had a fork bent and straightened could ever be represented as immaculate. The only thing the seller mentioned was that he rode it for a few hundred miles and then decided he didn't like the color, so he sent it back to the builder to have it re-painted.

BTW... the builder recalls that the fork was bent from being on a car rack, not a riding accident.

Welcome to the forum... :rolleyes:

Seriously? That is a crappy response don't you think? You open up the thread to pose your questions, in fact you pose them to the free world to answer and when somebody does, you chide them for their number of posts and forum status? The guy said some things that probably pissed you off, but frankly, he was not 100% off base. The seller should have disclosed information to you, but that also does not absolve you of your responsibility to ask.

I appreciate the opportunity to not only have this discussion (which is healthy) but also to opportunity to disagree with others on this. This is how a "community" not only develops its standards, but solidifies them.

Cheers
Paul

[scottcw2]

Is this the frame that was made in Minneapolis?

Yes. I was trying to sell it, didn't get enough interest, so I decided to build it and ride it. I'm glad it didn't sell so that nobody else got involved.

[scottcw2]

Seriously? That is a crappy response don't you think?

Nope, don't.

The person's first post is to lecture about "common law" when the issue at hand is ethics. I work in a corporate legal dept. I know all about the law. The law and ethics are two different issues. As has been expressed on this thread, there is an expectation in this community of a higher ethical standard than the law would otherwise dictate, especially when representing a frame as "immaculate."

[gdw]

That sucks. Hopefully the original seller will read through this thread and the two of you can work something out.

[rugbysecondrow]

Nope, don't.

The person's first post is to lecture about "common law" when the issue at hand is ethics. I work in a corporate legal dept. I know all about the law. The law and ethics are two different issues. As has been expressed on this thread, there is an expectation in this community of a higher ethical standard than the law would otherwise dictate, especially when representing a frame as "immaculate."

Now that comment was better developed. Maybe that would have been appropriate response to his "common law" point instead of belittling him for his forum status, which was my point. That is why it was a crappy response. If you are going to open up the floor to questions and answers, you might not like what you hear. Can't we argue the merits of our positions and stick to the point with out insulting and belittling other people...

Cheers

[scottcw2]

Now that comment was better developed. Maybe that would have been appropriate response to his "common law" point instead of belittling him for his forum status, which was my point. That is why it was a crappy response. If you are going to open up the floor to questions and answers, you might not like what you hear. Can't we argue the merits of our positions and stick to the point with out insulting and belittling other people...

Cheers

That's a fair comment.

Perhaps I should re-clarify that my question/issue is not whether the seller could get away with it (common law), but whether it is acceptable not to disclose known issues (ethics).

[rugbysecondrow]

Agreed and I would say it is not acceptable to hide info like that which could be potentially dangerous. Yes, the builder indicated it could be safe, but that is something the seller should say and then give you the opportunity to make buying decision based on all the info.

Hope this gets resolved.

.That's a fair comment.

Perhaps I should re-clarify that my question/issue is not whether the seller could get away with it (common law), but whether it is acceptable not to disclose known issues (ethics).

[martinrjensen]

That's a fair comment.

Perhaps I should re-clarify that my question/issue is not whether the seller could get away with it (common law), but whether it is acceptable not to disclose known issues (ethics).

Hummm. That's a completely separate and different question.
There are at least 2 totally separate issues here that are getting mixed together. As you stated they are really completely separate issues. While the 2 questions (selling and ethics) quite often go hand in hand, there is no requirement that they do and prudence dictates that you should not assume one is connected to the other. Buyer beware

[Sandy]

"Immaculate"? That's an inquiry-stopper. It effectively means, you need ask no further questions.

Sorry, this is pretty simple.

+1


Immaculate Sandy

[Lifelover]

.... As has been expressed on this thread, there is an expectation in this community of a higher ethical standard than the law would otherwise dictate, especially when representing a frame as "immaculate."

I don't have the same expectation as you.

This is where you made you mistake.

[scottcw2]

I don't have the same expectation as you.

This is where you made you mistake.

No, it's not a mistake. Obviously we have a different expectation of ethics. Note to self.

[eddief]

1: having no stain or blemish : pure
2: containing no flaw or error
3 a: spotlessly clean b: having no colored spots or marks <petals immaculate>

perfectly clean; without a spot or stain; unsoiled
perfectly correct; without a flaw, fault, or error
pure; innocent; without sin

[scottcw2]

1: having no stain or blemish : pure
2: containing no flaw or error
3 a: spotlessly clean b: having no colored spots or marks <petals immaculate>

perfectly clean; without a spot or stain; unsoiled
perfectly correct; without a flaw, fault, or error
pure; innocent; without sin

Pretty much sums it up. I agree with paczki that describing a frame as immaculate means that no questions about accidents need be asked.

Interesting how some folks think that this is my fault or I share some blame. Ethics are clearly not what they used to be.

[eddief]

if it was fixed to factory/builder specs, then maybe in the eyes of the seller it was immaculate. maybe the builder is doing a bit of farting here. maybe ethics are not as black and white as some think. maybe that's why george bush sleeps well at night...the eye of the beholder rule may be in play here.

if you are unhappy, maybe you ought take it up with the seller, maybe he'd do whatever you need done to be a happy camper. now all the facts are out, someone else might be interested in a close to nearly immaculate frameset, with nearly an immaculate bill of health from the expert who built it and repaired it.

[Louis]

I hate to muddy the water even further, but do we know that this issue is limited only to the fork? What about the frame? If the fork was installed when it was damaged then certainly some significant loads were also applied to the frame. My personal experience:

Once years ago while I was descending at a decent clip a pick-up pulled out across the road. I t-boned him in the passenger door. Not sure how fast I was going at the time, but I managed to slow down quite a bit. My steel fork was plastically bent back far enough that the DT prevented it from turning. More relevant to this discussion, the TT was wrinkled just aft of the HT lug and the DT was wrinkled between the HT lug and the DT shifter bosses. I bent the fork back into place and rode the bike another year or so, after which the rust at the spot where the fork paint had crackled bothered me to the point where I replaced the fork with a CF Kestrel. About two years later while I was JRA the DT itself failed at the spot where it had been damaged during the crash.

Bottom line: Are you sure that the frame was not damaged during the incident that damaged the fork?

Good luck, this is a mess.
Louis

[paczki]

maybe ethics are not as black and white as some think. maybe that's why george bush sleeps well at night...

Not to get into the other sort of long-thread argument, but sleeping well at night doesn't make something right! Ever seen the end of Chinatown!

[Fivethumbs]

After reading all the responses I can say that there are forum members that I would buy stuff from without hesitation and some whose items I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. I'm sure everyone can surmise which ones are which. What if the builder said he didn't have much faith in the fork and that it most likely would crack soon? Should the seller disclose that? It makes me wonder as there are some on this forum who think that if you don't ask you don't deserve to know.

Some people think that all that matters is what they HAVE to do. For me it boils down to what's cool and what's uncool to do. Not telling is uncool.

[paczki]

Ethics are clearly not what they used to be.

They used to be much worse!

[ChipRI]

Since I posted to this thread fairly early on, I find your position has evolved from an objective solicitation of feedback to a rigid defense of your ethical predispositions (with which I agree, by the way).

In the process however you've become personally critical of some of those who answered your request for opinion, and with whom you disagree. You've criticized someone on the basis of choosing to make their first forum post on your thread (perhaps you should have established a required minimum of prior posts from the outset). You have also implied judgement on another forumite who disagrees with you ("note to self").

At this point you've had lots of feedback, pro and con, and you've made your own position quite clear. Perhaps it's time to take it up with the seller with the same vigor you've expressed to us. I'm sure we'd all be glad to know how it works out.

[Samster]

deleted because it's all been said before...

good luck resolving.

[kestrel]

You are correct, and I would never buy from those people. I doubt others who have read this thread will either.

If I were forced to make a list of things I learned from this thread, this post would be item number 1 with a big bullet!

Interestingly, I always thought this forum had a higher ethical standard than other forums I frequent. Makes me rethink the entire trust issue of internet dealings. Thanks scottcw2 for this thread.

[paczki]

If I were forced to make a list of things I learned from this thread, this post would be item number 1 with a big bullet!

Interestingly, I always thought this forum had a higher ethical standard than other forums I frequent. Makes me rethink the entire trust issue of internet dealings. Thanks scottcw2 for this thread.

I wouldn't presume that people who have expressed skepticism would rip you off. I seriously doubt it. You'd just need to ask "What do you mean by immaculate!"

[djg21]

If the sellor in in business of making a living selling used parts, you might (just might) have a point. If this was just a case of an individual selling to another individual, the sellor is under absolutely no obligation to do anything except say "I have x for sale. It's up to the buyer to ask. That's it.

First, it's "seller," and not "sellor." That being said, I prefer the terms "screwer" and "screwee." ;->

Second, the question of whether the screwer is in the business of selling used bikes is irrelevant. The pertinent questions are: (1) whether it was objectively reasonable for the screwer to withhold information regarding damage to the bike and the repair of that damage to a prospective purchaser; and (2) whether the screwer had a duty to disclose that information to a prospective purchaser. The fact that the bike had been significantly damaged indisputably would be material to any prospective purchaser, and hence, it was objectively unreasonable for the seller to omit to disclose the information, which he had a duty to disclose.

There is no real issue here, and this is an example of a situation where the legal and ethical questions overlap. The purchase agreement at issue was premised at least on mistake, if not outright intentional fraud. Either way, the purchaser should be entitled to set aside the agreement and secure a refund of the purchase price.

If this was an honest oversight by the seller (while I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, it is difficult to believe that one could sell a bike without remembering that it had been significantly damaged, or that the seller here did not intentionally elect to withhold the pertinent information in order to maximize the price received for the bike), he should be more than agreeable to "undo" the transaction. If this was not an oversight, but rather an intentional omission, this guy deserves everything that comes to him and then some.

[djg]

If I were forced to make a list of things I learned from this thread, this post would be item number 1 with a big bullet!

Interestingly, I always thought this forum had a higher ethical standard than other forums I frequent. Makes me rethink the entire trust issue of internet dealings. Thanks scottcw2 for this thread.

I dunno. Talk is cheap. There are folks who are very cautious in attributing responsibility or blame to others who hold themselves to much higher standards; and there are folks who talk a better game than they play. I'm not accusing anybody in this thread of anything. Personally, I've had good luck buying and selling this and that through the board and I'd be inclined to give established posters here the benefit of the doubt in the future. I've also met some good folks through the forum. But, you know, different people come and go and different people bring different "gifts" to the table.

[scottcw2]

Since I posted to this thread fairly early on, I find your position has evolved from an objective solicitation of feedback to a rigid defense of your ethical predispositions (with which I agree, by the way).

In the process however you've become personally critical of some of those who answered your request for opinion, and with whom you disagree. You've criticized someone on the basis of choosing to make their first forum post on your thread (perhaps you should have established a required minimum of prior posts from the outset). You have also implied judgement on another forumite who disagrees with you ("note to self").

At this point you've had lots of feedback, pro and con, and you've made your own position quite clear. Perhaps it's time to take it up with the seller with the same vigor you've expressed to us. I'm sure we'd all be glad to know how it works out.

My position has evolved because I honestly had no idea that my question about ethics would be met with criticism of my not asking the right questions prior to sale in some people's opinion. And yes, the "note to self" comment meant that I would never buy something from that person, here or elsewhere. It is no more a judgment of their opinion than their comments are a judgment of mine. What's good for the goose, right?

[scottcw2]

if it was fixed to factory/builder specs, then maybe in the eyes of the seller it was immaculate. maybe the builder is doing a bit of farting here. maybe ethics are not as black and white as some think. maybe that's why george bush sleeps well at night...the eye of the beholder rule may be in play here.

if you are unhappy, maybe you ought take it up with the seller, maybe he'd do whatever you need done to be a happy camper. now all the facts are out, someone else might be interested in a close to nearly immaculate frameset, with nearly an immaculate bill of health from the expert who built it and repaired it.

Based on the excellent definition of "immaculate" that you posted, immaculate is the same as saying "mint" which means as close to new as possible without being new. Nothing that has been repaired is either "mint" or "immaculate."

[scottcw2]

Bottom line: Are you sure that the frame was not damaged during the incident that damaged the fork?

Good luck, this is a mess.
Louis

Thanks Louis. According to the builder, the only damage was to the fork. Keep in mind that he stated that he has straightened worse fork bends that have been ridden without failure to date. However, he just wants me to keep a careful look for signs of cracks.

[kestrel]

I wouldn't presume that people who have expressed skepticism would rip you off. I seriously doubt it. You'd just need to ask "What do you mean by immaculate!"

Precisely, YOU wouldn't.

[Fivethumbs]

Another thing at issue here is the safety of the OP. Since the builder told the OP to be on the lookout for signs of fatigue or failure, I imagine the builder had previously provided the same warning to the seller. The seller was then able to be more diligent with his fork inspections than would normally be necessary. The seller, however, failed to forward that information/warning to the buyer, thus putting the buyer in a potentially dangerous if not lifethreatening situation. If the seller had mentioned it, I'm sure it would have initiated the question of "Why do I need to check the fork for failure/fatigue", which obviously would have let the cat out of the bag. The seller decided that it was more important to sell the item for more $$ than to provide the (IMHO important) warning that he received from the builder regarding potential fork failure.

[dannyg1]

Another thing at issue here is the safety of the OP. Since the builder told the OP to be on the lookout for signs of fatigue or failure, I imagine the builder had previously provided the same warning to the seller

.>>>>>snip<<<<

The seller decided that it was more important to sell the item for more $$ than to provide the (IMHO important) warning that he received from the builder regarding potential fork failure.

Might be that this is a leap. Is it possible to see photos of this frame? Maybe a master builder can chime in about the safety comparison of new frame and one that's been expertly repaired, by it's original maker to the point that it looks new?

It seems possible to me that the builder could just as easily have said that having the frame repaired would leave it good as new and then, upon learning that the frame changed hands, delivered a concern that was expressed in a way that the interpretation of it was more critically received, given the suspicious undertones of any sale.

My thinking is that this entire thing could easily be a genuine misunderstanding.

The ethical question may not be adequately settled by either of these comments I'm asking for but, I'm thinking that the safety issue that's being assumed definitive in most arguments her,e most probably is of less dire circumstance than the characterizations warrant. People on this forum just will not buy stuff that isn't up to snuff, condition wise.

[eddief]

i wish i could have said it myself. human and misunderstanding used in the same sentence without painting another into a corner.

[DukeHorn]

Frankly the fact that you work in a corporate legal department just makes me grimace at the way you set up your "scenario".

First off, your story has changed in detail. In your initial post, you never disclosed that the buyer has represented it as "immaculate". Why not? Isn't that a point of primary disclosure if you're going to tell your "story" to this forum.

The second point is this $500 replacement cost for a new steel fork. Really? A steel fork from landshark is $325. A steelman in any color is $400.

If you're going to berate folks on this forum for their responses, maybe you should look in the mirror at failure to provide relevant details in your initial post.

And why shouldn't someone express the law, did you limit the discussion to ethics only? If you studied torts, then you more than realize that ethics and economics are quite tightly intertwined when dealing with damages. Right??

Just saying....

[Louis]

The second point is this $500 replacement cost for a new steel fork. Really? A steel fork from landshark is $325. A steelman in any color is $400.

In defense of the OP, I have to believe (and I don't blame him) that he would want a replacement from the original manufacturer. The fact that there are other, less expensive, forks out there that could possibly replace the one that might have problems is different issue. He could probably replace the original with a $79 CF fork, -20% if it's on sale. That unfortunately is not an attractive option for this type of frame.

[scottcw2]

Frankly the fact that you work in a corporate legal department just makes me grimace at the way you set up your "scenario".

First off, your story has changed in detail. In your initial post, you never disclosed that the buyer has represented it as "immaculate". Why not? Isn't that a point of primary disclosure if you're going to tell your "story" to this forum.

The second point is this $500 replacement cost for a new steel fork. Really? A steel fork from landshark is $325. A steelman in any color is $400.

If you're going to berate folks on this forum for their responses, maybe you should look in the mirror at failure to provide relevant details in your initial post.

And why shouldn't someone express the law, did you limit the discussion to ethics only? If you studied torts, then you more than realize that ethics and economics are quite tightly intertwined when dealing with damages. Right??

Just saying....

Hmmm... so I was less than ethical in my initial post? Interesting viewpoint.

Why would I need to "disclose" that the frame was represented as immaculate?

Regardless of how the frame was represented, is it ethical to know that a frame has possible structural issues that could affect the buyers safety and not disclose this information?

What if the details provided were simply the name of the builder and the measurements? does that change the ethics involved?

I only gave more detail when it became obvious that some thought I was at fault here. There was nothing disingenuous about my initial post regardless of your implication otherwise.

Yes, I thought a title of "ethical question" was quite clear that I was limiting the issue to ethics, not the law. Silly me, what was I thinking???

And no, I never studied torts. I work with intellectual property.

[Lifelover]

So... ethics = drama? Interesting.

This thread = drama!

What are the ethics involved with effectively "outing" the seller when you have not even given him 24 hours to respond to your PM? That seems pretty damn uncool.

I'll repeat myself and than bug out:

Given your anxiety with riding this fork, I don't understand how you don't feel the builder is also lacking ethically. Either the fork that he repaired (for a professional fee I assume) presents an acceptable risk to ride or it presents an unacceptable risk to ride. I assume it is acceptable and you are taking his "warning" out of context.

The whole "check it" statement is 100% B fn S. If anything it place the builder at added legal risk.

How often do you have to check it? How often to you have to check a new fork made from the same steel? Is this repaired fork stronger than a brand new light weight fork? Is the average cyclist even qualified to check it? Could it be in failure mode but masked by paint? Do the riding conditions change the frequency of the checks? Blah, Blah, Blah?

Whatever, I hope it works out for you and the seller, though I don't see how that can happen after this thread.

[scottcw2]

I'll repeat myself and than bug out... Blah, Blah, Blah.

Buh-bye!

[Ti Designs]

Actually, I have never ridden the bike. I took it to my LBS this past week to have it built up.

And...

Yes. I was trying to sell it, didn't get enough interest, so I decided to build it and ride it. I'm glad it didn't sell so that nobody else got involved.

Let me see if I have this right. The original owner damaged the bike while on his roof rack. Then he had it fixed and sold it to you. You never rode it and planned to sell it. Only after it didn't sell did you take it to the shop to be built. And you have other bikes that you ride.

I say the real victom here is the bike. Will someone please hang some parts on it and go for a ride!?!?!

[scottcw2]

I say the real victom here is the bike. Will someone please hang some parts on it and go for a ride!?!?!

By the end of the week.

At this point, I am leaning toward having the builder make a new fork in the next few months. I will ride it until then.

[djg]

Hmmm... so I was less than ethical in my initial post? Interesting viewpoint.

Why would I need to "disclose" that the frame was represented as immaculate?

Regardless of how the frame was represented, is it ethical to know that a frame has possible structural issues that could affect the buyers safety and not disclose this information?

What if the details provided were simply the name of the builder and the measurements? does that change the ethics involved?

I only gave more detail when it became obvious that some thought I was at fault here. There was nothing disingenuous about my initial post regardless of your implication otherwise.

Yes, I thought a title of "ethical question" was quite clear that I was limiting the issue to ethics, not the law. Silly me, what was I thinking???

And no, I never studied torts. I work with intellectual property.

You never studied torts? You attended law school in the United States and you never studied torts?

[goonster]

You attended law school in the United States and you never studied torts?

Since law school = torts, the OP is apparently not a bona fide lawyer, regardless of what department he works in.

Enough of this @#$% already. The seller was a sleaze in not disclosing the repair. The builder* says the bike is safe**. You either trust him, or you don't. If you don't think he can properly assess the integrity of a fork, why would you buy or ride a frame he built? Throw it into a lake! :crap:

* = Lack of fancy website notwithstanding, Chris Kvale is a top-tier builder. If the man tells me a fork is safe, I'll take it to France.

** = All frames and forks should be inspected regularly for cracks. Sheesh.

[slowgoing]

<chuckling taking ethical advice from someone named "goonster">

[scottcw2]

You never studied torts? You attended law school in the United States and you never studied torts?

Did I say I went to law school??? Uh, that would be no. I said I work in a corporate legal dept. There are a lot of jobs in a corporate legal dept. that don't involve law school.

[scottcw2]

Since law school = torts, the OP is apparently not a bona fide lawyer, regardless of what department he works in.

I never claimed to be.

[Sandy]

You never studied torts? You attended law school in the United States and you never studied torts?

I don't think he said he is a lawyer. I believe he said that he works in a legal department. That was a zillion posts ago, and I am lucky to remember what I am even saying in this post as I say it. :rolleyes: :)


Sandy

[scottcw2]

I don't think he said he is a lawyer. I believe he said that he works in a legal department. That was a zillion posts ago, and I am lucky to remember what I am even saying in this post as I say it. :rolleyes: :)


Sandy

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

[goonster]

<chuckling taking ethical advice from someone named "goonster">

Nobody laughs at my name more than me. ;)

Believe it or not, I'm possibly among a minority of posters in this thread that are formally educated in ethics. :eek:

[dekindy]

Should the seller have disclosed? I would have. Is it a big deal? I doubt it. This seems more like a CYA builder disclosure to me. Is the fork safe for the original buyer to ride but not the new owner?

I am not clear on how old this bike is or how many miles were advertised? How badly was the fork bent? Is the builder highly reputable and would not repair a fork that he would not personally ride?

Immanculate to me implies the condition of the finish and nothing else.

What is better? A used bike that has a lot of miles and has never been crashed but has hit the normal number of deep chuckholes and never been inspected by the builder or one that has been bent and send to the builder for inspection and repair and proclaimed rideable.

The original owner could have bent the fork back himself and nobody would have been the wiser. At least he was responsible enough to send it back to the builder for review. How many reputable sellers have bent back a steel part and not thought anything about it? Everyone raves about the repairability of steel and it's safety factor from catastrophic failure? Well is it true or isn't it?

I don't ever plan to sell my Serotta Legend. The DS dropout cracked and was sent to Serotta for repair and both dropouts have been replaced. If I did sell my Legend 10 years from now, should I disclose it? What is better, a 2007 model with the old design dropouts that has never had a failure or a 2007 model that had a dropout cracked and warranty replaced by Serotta with the new style, stronger dropout and ridden tens of thousands of trouble-free miles? You can't tell the difference in the dropouts from the naked eye.

Is steel the safe(not subject to catastrophic failure), material everyone proclaims or not? If the builder is reputable and applies a high standard to repairs, how bad can the fork be? At least the seller did the responsible thing and had it examined by the builder.

My take on all this is that the damage was so slight and the builder was exercising the judgment standard that would have been acceptable years ago but is now forced to cover his behind because of the current legal environment.

[jasond]

What I really find interesting is the fact that you are complaining about someone not disclosing the fact the fork had been bent and repaired. But when I do a simple search I see you're selling the same bike with no disclosure. Does two wrongs make a right??? I was with you up until I saw that you were selling the bike.

J

[dekindy]

I wonder if the seller read this and said, "Oh, crap, that was the bike I ran into the garage?!". :crap:

[djg]

I don't think he said he is a lawyer. I believe he said that he works in a legal department. That was a zillion posts ago, and I am lucky to remember what I am even saying in this post as I say it. :rolleyes: :)


Sandy


No indeed. It's a long, long thread about an ad I never read, for a bike I've never seen, which was inspected by a builder I don't know, who gave advice I haven't heard or read, and what we all think about these mysteries. Sandy I have nothing to add to this about normal conversational implication, which is a subject I never studied when I went to MIT . . . for lunch. So with apologies for the distraction, I'm out.

[Ti Designs]

Did I say I went to law school??? Uh, that would be no. I said I work in a corporate legal dept. There are a lot of jobs in a corporate legal dept. that don't involve law school.


Are lawyer jokes allowed on the forum? I know that the lawyers with no sense of humor will be quick to point out the rules of posting, but I'm having a hard time fighting the urge...

[William]

Are lawyer jokes allowed on the forum? I know that the lawyers with no sense of humor will be quick to point out the rules of posting, but I'm having a hard time fighting the urge...

http://ipfunny.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/125200635137_pm.jpg





William ;)

[scottcw2]

What I really find interesting is the fact that you are complaining about someone not disclosing the fact the fork had been bent and repaired. But when I do a simple search I see you're selling the same bike with no disclosure. Does two wrongs make a right??? I was with you up until I saw that you were selling the bike.

J

I found out about the issue AFTER I posted the for sale ad. The timeline was - posted frame/fork for sale, got a question that I had to contact the builder to answer, stopped trying to sell and decided to build, took frame/fork to my LBS to be built, builder contacted me to inform me about the fork issue.

So I had already decided to keep and ride the frame/fork before I found out the fork had been bent. There is no way I would have sold this frame/fork without full disclosure once I became aware of the issue.

[mister]

Enough of this @#$% already. The seller was a sleaze in not disclosing the repair. The builder* says the bike is safe**. You either trust him, or you don't. If you don't think he can properly assess the integrity of a fork, why would you buy or ride a frame he built? Throw it into a lake! :crap:

* = Lack of fancy website notwithstanding, Chris Kvale is a top-tier builder. If the man tells me a fork is safe, I'll take it to France.

** = All frames and forks should be inspected regularly for cracks. Sheesh.

+1.

if the fork had to be repaired and the frame also had to be repainted it's not immaculate.
the history of the frame should have been mentioned.
also sounds like the seller had the frame repainted because of the damage but stated they didn't like the color.

i'd ride the frame and fork if chris kvale said it's safe.

repaired and repainted vs. truly mint doesn't demand the same price atmo.

[scottcw2]

* = Lack of fancy website notwithstanding, Chris Kvale is a top-tier builder. If the man tells me a fork is safe, I'll take it to France.

** = All frames and forks should be inspected regularly for cracks. Sheesh.

The more I think about it, the more I take this view. Not only is Chris a top-tier builder, but the research I did indicates he is extremely ethical. I do not believe he would have ever sent back a fork he felt was not safe nor would he tell me I could ride it. I also do not believe he is trolling for me to purchase a new fork. I think he wanted me to be fully aware of what I had bought and to be extra careful in inspecting the fork periodically.

[Ti Designs]

Lack of fancy website notwithstanding, Chris Kvale is a top-tier builder. If the man tells me a fork is safe, I'll take it to France.

Where do I start???

Why take a safe fork to France? Is the bike going too, or just the safe fork? I guess if the bike stays in the US it can't be a danger to the rider 'cause you can't ride it without the fork...

Does this Kvale guy pass jusdgement on spoons and knives too? I seem to be injuring myself a lot with both my salad fork and my soup spoon...

The fork is just one part of the bike. By comparison, the rider is a much larger piece of the whole picture. An unsafe rider with a safe fork makes for an unsafe vehicle - even in France.

[Ti Designs]

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!


No, don't.

[bostondrunk]

....

I would like to think that sales on this forum have a higher level of trust than eBay. I wouldn't sell here without full disclosure, eBay, maybe...if safety wasn't an issue, and it doesn't appear to be.

That being said, I've seen some shady deals go down here.

I've had lousy experiences here, and great experiences on ebay.
It's really weird. But I find sellers on ebay tend to be a lot more accurate and honest in their descriptions than folks here.
My last four purchases from people here involved a very misaligned frame with water bottle bosses that pointed off to the side, a front derailleur missing its mounting hardware, a saddle that was very crooked when put on a flat surface, and a 'like new' hub that had bearings which were completely shot and felt like gravel.

People here seem to think well used and/or broken = 'like new'.

[NRRider]

Are lawyer jokes allowed on the forum? I know that the lawyers with no sense of humor will be quick to point out the rules of posting, but I'm having a hard time fighting the urge...

Only if they are original and funny. I think I've heard them all but would love to hear a new one.

Then again, I'm torn between reading some good lawyer humor versus reading how the seller here was a sleaze or how it's all the buyer's fault for assuming someone would disclose a crash. By the way, I'm a lawyer so I can speak for all lawyers here when I say we will not be offended (though that probably takes the fun out of it).

Also btw, OP, sounds like you made the right choice re the fork, though I would still try to find the seller and try to get a price adjustment (or refund assuming you're not happy with a market adjustment to the price).