Tyre Shops sending undamaged tyres for recycling without asking customer?

[IzZzy]

Last i checked you can't just impose terms based on a random sign hidden somewhere in a shop.

Or at least any time this kind of thing has gone to court it's been thrown out.

That's not true at all and very dangerous advice. And, for the record, I never said "hidden" sign. I said conspicous.

Without quoting specific case law - here is the WP entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_contract_law#Ticket_cases_and_notices

 

[werner]

I agree




And I think I've found the culprit.

oh boy, we found one guys!

Guess fridays are boring for you.

Btw, the wiki quote is a bit incomplete for those skim reading, vis ITPMS arent regarded as accurate enough for use in Europe (the TUV have rejected them), so they cant measure half a percent with enough accuracy to throw a reliable limp code. and as such arent bloody used.

but dont worry Colin, beer and braaivleis tomorrow for you, and you can go high-five somebody and s******. (nice mybb....sn1gger is a banned word.) I know why (inside letters spell something else) but cmon..its just english. Go fix the filter.

You obviously didnt get the bit where we can tackle this as a study into *if* this is solvable using wheel speed sensors.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I take it all back. Colin, can you contribute to this discussion to help me/us understand more?
If I have said something incorrect, then you can educate me now in a way that makes sense.

 

[SauRoNZA]

That's not true at all and very dangerous advice. And, for the record, I never said "hidden" sign. I said conspicous.





Without quoting specific case law - here is the WP entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_contract_law#Ticket_cases_and_notices

It wasn't advice, it was a statement.



I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure if there was large enough material loss involved hare and the "reasonable man" logic was used you would gave a hard time using a sign as a contract agreement as it doesn't automatically mean both parties are aware of the condition and open to interpret it.


"◾There must be consensus ad idem between the contracting parties."


Then I might as well put a sign at my front door saying if you ring my bell you owe me R500.



It simply doesn't work like that.

 

[IzZzy]

It wasn't advice, it was a statement.



I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure if there was large enough material loss involved hare and the "reasonable man" logic was used you would gave a hard time using a sign as a contract agreement as it doesn't automatically mean both parties are aware of the condition and open to interpret it.


"◾There must be consensus ad idem between the contracting parties."


Then I might as well put a sign at my front door saying if you ring my bell you owe me R500.



It simply doesn't work like that.

I am, however - and a corporate commercial one to boot. Imposed terms do work like that. The only caveat to imposed terms is that the terms imposed are usual or expected in a transaction of that nature. It is hard to argue that you cannot expect a tyre shop to recover your used tyres when this is practice.

Consensus ad idem does not require that there be a written or oral contract - look at implied terms (distinct from imposed) or terms imposed by law.

There are a whole host of requirements about the conspicious placing of signs. Go to any petrol forecourt - there will be signs on the pumps, at eye level, that tell you to switch off your phone etc. Those terms are imposed on you. If you nevertheless use your phone, and the forecourt explodes, then you would have breached the terms applicable to the use of the petrol pumps - and thus cannot sue the forecourt owner for your own conduct.

Go to any amusement park - there are exclusion of liability signs everywhere. Imposed terms are at the heart of SA contract law, for the very reason that it is impossible to reduce each and every agreement down to writing.

Your example shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of imposed terms: what is imposed are terms, not a contract in of itself. Ringing a bell does not result in a contract to which terms may be imposed.

 

[Ockie]

I am, however - and a corporate commercial one to boot. Imposed terms do work like that. The only caveat to imposed terms is that the terms imposed are usual or expected in a transaction of that nature. It is hard to argue that you cannot expect a tyre shop to recover your used tyres when this is practice.

Dont mean to sound dramatic, but basically legal theft then.

 

[Colin62]

Actually, I take it all back. Colin, can you contribute to this discussion to help me/us understand more?
If I have said something incorrect, then you can educate me now in a way that makes sense.

You just got up my nose by posting very strongly worded posts without having a clue how the technology worked (or didn't work, as the case may be).

It's not just a case of the sensor making a quick reading and flagging a tyre pressure error.

Basically, if one wheel consistently (over reasonably long distance) does more revolutions than the other wheel on the same axle (and this pattern isn't repeated on the other axle) then it's not rocket science to see that it could trigger the tyre pressure sensor. Especially if you consider that the newly replaced tyre would have been pumped up before being fitted, and would have been pumped cold, and the old tyre may well have had marginally less pressure in it (from not being pumped for a week or two, and then also being pumped with a different gauge and at a different temperature) as well as being marginally smaller.

And BMW X series vehicles are well know for being very fussy about tyre sizes - read a few BMW forums to see how many people have trouble with exactly that. BMW have actually gone to the trouble of certifying certain tyres as being suitable for their vehicles, based on the tyres sizes being consistent (obviously among other factors).

 

[IzZzy]

Dont mean to sound dramatic, but basically legal theft then.

No, theft requires unlawfulness. The imposed term (when applied properly) gives them the consent required. If I were you, I would visit the branch again and look for this very sign. It's at the heart of the matter - if the sign isn't conspicous (i.e. its in the toilet or very high up etc), then I would be 100% on your side to claim the tyre back.

 

[Ockie]

No, theft requires unlawfulness. The imposed term (when applied properly) gives them the consent required. If I were you, I would visit the branch again and look for this very sign. It's at the heart of the matter - if the sign isn't conspicous (i.e. its in the toilet or very high up etc), then I would be 100% on your side to claim the tyre back.

Maybe I will. But I am kind of getting over this fcking drama. Think I should just move on. Not worth it.

Tell me though. Why cant they just verbally ask the client if they would like them to take the tyre and recycle it? Them not taking the 5 seconds to ask tells me they are betting on noobs like me not seeing the sign, and driving off without their perfectly good tyre. This just tells me that like so many mechanics/dealers, these people are scum.

 

[thehuman]

Maybe because if they do ask a good percentage of customer will refuse to leave thier good tire behind . And will hurt thier profit margin

 

[SauRoNZA]

I am, however - and a corporate commercial one to boot. Imposed terms do work like that. The only caveat to imposed terms is that the terms imposed are usual or expected in a transaction of that nature. It is hard to argue that you cannot expect a tyre shop to recover your used tyres when this is practice.

Consensus ad idem does not require that there be a written or oral contract - look at implied terms (distinct from imposed) or terms imposed by law.

There are a whole host of requirements about the conspicious placing of signs. Go to any petrol forecourt - there will be signs on the pumps, at eye level, that tell you to switch off your phone etc. Those terms are imposed on you. If you nevertheless use your phone, and the forecourt explodes, then you would have breached the terms applicable to the use of the petrol pumps - and thus cannot sue the forecourt owner for your own conduct.

Go to any amusement park - there are exclusion of liability signs everywhere. Imposed terms are at the heart of SA contract law, for the very reason that it is impossible to reduce each and every agreement down to writing.

Your example shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of imposed terms: what is imposed are terms, not a contract in of itself. Ringing a bell does not result in a contract to which terms may be imposed.

Well that's just a bloody unfair fight!

But yes I agree in this case it is the norm and understand the imposed terms and I wasn't really arguing that but rather just the case that a sign somewhere equals a contract which even by your explanation is not the case so we are actually in agreement.

 

[werner]

@colin62 cheers, this is a learning experience and I dont mind being educated. I wont apologise for how I speak or type though..theres many members here who write in a weird frame and you have to gloss over these things. I am what I am.

Back to sensors, I think the crux I am trying to get to is, ok, we have ways of detecting what is going on, but I'm stubborn in that (as I have typed a few times) it isnt reliable enough to throw a fault code. Just because a wheel is deemed to be reading a bit odd..The wiki page for the second type of pressure sensor even says this....
Without going hyper-local, the cars are used all over the world in snowy conditions, sandy areas..not just Parktown, Jhb. To consistently enough read one wheel different (half a percent? one percent?) and to them use this as gospel data to put a car in limp mode still doesnt strike me as a sane idea.

If it snows in Seattle, as it does, or Moscow, or Sweden, and every sensor is consistently producing weird results....it just doesnt stack up that BMW (or any other automaker) will use that data to the point of limp moding the car. An ecu code you can read with a scanner sure...same as a cylinder intermittent misfire. But activating limp mode...I'm still unconvinced.

In fact, I doubt I would buy a car that does that. The only choice I can see is if all sensors are out (based on their neighbour) then suspend any decision until such time as sensors calm down.

My original question was how do we make a program based on the sensor readings that detects one tyre has 5000km more wear than the other. Its been covered that you cant directly use the data produced (I hope we can all see the large range of variables that you just simply cannot rely 100% on), but perhaps you can fuzzy it over a few days to work out "something" (we can leave what that is for a later day), and now we have to decide if that "something" is worth limp moding (as the garage said) (do we have faith in our conclusions enough to justify taking the car to a dealer and inconveniencing our client) or just throw a code for the service techs to check at the regular service interval.

And to throw this into the mix, the OP's car a pair of tyres replaced, as it is normal to do

So if we take this to our x6 car (the poster mentioned they replaced both tyres too), we can see that our theoretical system has to rely only on an axle, not on 4 wheels. The x6 mentioned above has two new tyres, and two worn tyres. And isnt throwing a code.

So back to the drawing board. Our system can only use a pair of wheels, one of which may naturally be going a different speed due to corners, or bumps in the road, (concave or convex, that tyre goes a further distance), pressure differences or weight, road conditions etc (yeah, picky..but we're trying to reliably measure 0.5% difference in one wheel) and our data has to be solid enough to activate limp mode. And apparently, this system is in use in a bmw x6 right now. So lets work it out.

The much more glaringly obvious answer is that bmw cleared the code for a transmission/diff/speed sensor/abs ring, put on two new tyres and spun a story. And the code hasnt returned.

Those are our two choices.

 

[IzZzy]

Maybe I will. But I am kind of getting over this fcking drama. Think I should just move on. Not worth it.

Tell me though. Why cant they just verbally ask the client if they would like them to take the tyre and recycle it? Them not taking the 5 seconds to ask tells me they are betting on noobs like me not seeing the sign, and driving off without their perfectly good tyre. This just tells me that like so many mechanics/dealers, these people are scum.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. There's a large gaping hole between legalities and ethics.

Well that's just a bloody unfair fight!

But yes I agree in this case it is the norm and understand the imposed terms and I wasn't really arguing that but rather just the case that a sign somewhere equals a contract which even by your explanation is not the case so we are actually in agreement.

The unfairness of these imposed contracts is up for debate in light of the Constition and its founding values - so you may turn out to be correct in the long run

 

[SauRoNZA]

The one thing we didn't consider is that maybe the tyre shop dislodged the sensor when changing the tyre and that the size actually has nothing at all to do with the limp mode.