3 ms·
The big issue the author misses is that there's no such thing as a "lemon". The whole concept of the "lemon" is one that ignores that a machine like this is th
by bbarn 12y ago
The big issue the author misses is that there's no such thing as a "lemon". The whole concept of the "lemon" is one that ignores that a machine like this is the sum of it's parts, in their working or non working order.
In the auto world, some states have odd qualifiers like "3 times in X months = you bought a lemon", which in reality means, "I did not know enough about the individual parts of the machine I purchased to fairly assess their quality/condition/or appropriate place in the larger machine".
I can understand this, in the automotive world, as these machines are in fact quite complicated. A bicycle is not. The most complicated bicycles on the market may be, with electronic shifting, etc.. but those come at such a premium they're legitimately intended for racing users only. If you can't spend a few minutes to see how simple moving parts should work, take care of exposed parts in the elements, and educate yourself, how dare you compare your simplistic, cheap machine to a car legally.
We have enough problems trying to ride our bicycles without people trying to act like lawyers when they don't know how to clean their front derailleurs.
- rahimnathwani 12y ago> how dare you compare your simplistic, cheap machine to a car legally The article is using the term 'lemon' as an economic term, not a legal one. It suggests that the 'lemon problem'(economic term) in used car markets also occurs in used bicycle markets. The use of the term in economics goes back at least as far as 1970, so 5-10 years before the first 'lemon law' in the US.