LBS with INTEGRITY ." Replacing "stolen bike.

[Brett]

Hi5 to a new bike!

[Hairy]

15k = priceless positive publicity!

 

Weldone to the lbs for this and thanks to the op for letting us know

[Eugene]

Yep usually there is a disclaimer "you leave your bike here at own risk"

Actually the CPA no longer allows traders to hide behind these disclaimers. If something happens to your property under their care, they are liable.

 

Having said that, most companies ignore the CPA anyway.

[BenReaper]

Dont know the shop,but kudos to them for the way they handled the situation.Good to know there are still decent,responsible people/buisnesses out there.

[Oufy MTB (Roadie)]

kudos to shop

[Mntboy]

Well done to the LBS! Lekker to hear good guys still business!

[Patchelicious]

This is great news.

 

Where is Cyclists Workshop? Would love to pop in when in the area next.

[Rich]

Well done cyclists workshop!

[milky4130]

Actually the CPA no longer allows traders to hide behind these disclaimers. If something happens to your property under their care, they are liable.

 

Having said that, most companies ignore the CPA anyway.

which probably explains why that manager at the workshop was so eager to fix my fender bender.

[Hellgate]

Happy story ending and nice to read...Good on you Cyclists Workshop

[Jigghead]

I've used these guy, they're great.

[FHB]

Awesome, well done to the LBS. It is this kind of positiveness that will convince me to pop in at the LBS when I am in the area again.

[nonky]

Yep usually there is a disclaimer "you leave your bike here at own risk"

As per anything legal, IT DEPENDS.

 

The CPA does not allow for a business to contract out of GROSS negligence

 

Firstly, was the disclaimer visible and was the owner of the vehicle/ bike informed of it?

 

There was an SCA (Appeal Court) case about motor vehicles - see below - which explains negligence, as GROSS negligence is not defined in the Cons Prot Act.

 

In Mercurius Motors v Lopez, the SCA explains the test for NEGLIGENCE:

 

1. Would a reasonable person, in the same circumstances as the bike shop/garage, have foreseen the possibility of damage/loss/theft?

2. Would a reasonable person have taken steps to guard against the theft/loss/damage?

3. Did the garage/bike shop fail to take the steps required to prevent the loss/damage?

 

If the answer is yes to all three tests, the bike shop/garage was negligent.

 

When considering the CPA’s reference to gross negligence, a court would probably take the SCA's definition into account.

 

So, if the bike shop left the door open and unlocked or the bikes outside or similar negligent behavior, it could still be held liable notwithstanding the disclaimer for all losses suffered by customers.