Write down everything meticulously, like a journal; it's your word against theirs from now on.

frankv:

 

I don't know anything about violins or bows.  Just bringing to your attention some questions you might need to answer if you go to Disputes Tribunal or wherever.  No need to waste effort on answering them here if you don't want to. 

 

Presumably straightness of the bow is important to the quality of the music produced. How important? I guess an expert would notice the difference. But would it make any difference to, say, a beginner? Or make any difference to your playing? And/or be noticeable by whoever is listening?

 

Think of it like a bent bumper on a new car.  Perfectly safe, doesn't affect the driving quality.   Doesn't mean that you can sell cars with bent bumpers though. 

surfisup1000:

 

frankv:

 

I don't know anything about violins or bows.  Just bringing to your attention some questions you might need to answer if you go to Disputes Tribunal or wherever.  No need to waste effort on answering them here if you don't want to. 

 

Presumably straightness of the bow is important to the quality of the music produced. How important? I guess an expert would notice the difference. But would it make any difference to, say, a beginner? Or make any difference to your playing? And/or be noticeable by whoever is listening?

 

 

Think of it like a bent bumper on a new car.  Perfectly safe, doesn't affect the driving quality.   Doesn't mean that you can sell cars with bent bumpers though. 

 

 

 

Well, to be fair it's even less relevant, because regardless of whether he may or may not be able to hear the difference, it's not in original condition, which presumably regardless of the consequence, allows him remedy.

In this instance... "Just Cos" is all the reason he would need.

If I was the retailer (which I'm obviously not) and was going to argue against replacing the bow, I'd state that the fault wasn't there when the bow was sold, but developed later, as they are natural wood products for which the owner should exercise a reasonable amount of care, without which they may warp due to exposure to heat and/or humidity, or through over-tightening the hair, not de-tensioning the hair after use etc - conditions which are completely out of the seller's control.

4 months is quite a long time.

Sorry to offer that contrary view. 

Fred99:

 

If I was the retailer (which I'm obviously not) and was going to argue against replacing the bow, I'd state that the fault wasn't there when the bow was sold, but developed later, as they are natural wood products for which the owner should exercise a reasonable amount of care, without which they may warp due to exposure to heat and/or humidity, or through over-tightening the hair, not de-tensioning the hair after use etc - conditions which are completely out of the seller's control.

 

4 months is quite a long time.

 

Sorry to offer that contrary view. 

 

Which is fine, if 4 months is the reasonable time for a bow to not.. bow,which it isn't. 

Retailer would need to prove that the reasonable care, had been communicated clearly, and also that it had clearly not been followed. 

Next to zero chance that would fly with someone even moderately intelligent and unlikely an intelligent retailer would let it get to that stage in the first place given the risks of an adverse ruling. 

Presumably the retailer has a warranty from it's supplier, and this is all a fuss about nothing. 

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

If I was the retailer (which I'm obviously not) and was going to argue against replacing the bow, I'd state that the fault wasn't there when the bow was sold, but developed later, as they are natural wood products for which the owner should exercise a reasonable amount of care, without which they may warp due to exposure to heat and/or humidity, or through over-tightening the hair, not de-tensioning the hair after use etc - conditions which are completely out of the seller's control.

 

4 months is quite a long time.

 

Sorry to offer that contrary view. 

 

 

 

 

Which is fine, if 4 months is the reasonable time for a bow to not.. bow,which it isn't. 

 

Retailer would need to prove that the reasonable care, had been communicated clearly, and also that it had clearly not been followed. 

 

Next to zero chance that would fly with someone even moderately intelligent and unlikely an intelligent retailer would let it get to that stage in the first place given the risks of an adverse ruling. 

 

Presumably the retailer has a warranty from it's supplier, and this is all a fuss about nothing. 

 

 

 

I don't automatically agree- except that a good / "intelligent" retailer shouldn't have let the situation escalate to the point it appears to have. I'd be surprised if care instructions weren't included, and absolutely not surprised if some warping of a new bow could happen over a relatively short period of time if those instructions weren't followed.

Anyway, the point of my comments wasn't to argue with the OP (or you), or accuse them of anything - but to offer a suggestion of what the retailer may claim - in order to not be surprised if it came to a CGA hearing if the retailer was to ask questions of the OP to see if they knew about basic instrument care/maintenance, and didn't have the answers.

If that was presented to me in a hearing where it was one person arguing against another, and one came prepared with accurate information about basic care and maintenance, yet the other didn't seem to be aware of those requirements, that would sway me.

Fred99:

 

If I was the retailer (which I'm obviously not) and was going to argue against replacing the bow, I'd state that the fault wasn't there when the bow was sold, but developed later, as they are natural wood products for which the owner should exercise a reasonable amount of care, without which they may warp due to exposure to heat and/or humidity, or through over-tightening the hair, not de-tensioning the hair after use etc - conditions which are completely out of the seller's control.

 

4 months is quite a long time.

 

Sorry to offer that contrary view. 

 

Shouldn't they have done that initially when they first reported the problem? CGA issues also have to be resolved within a reasonable time period.

mattwnz:

 

Fred99:

 

If I was the retailer (which I'm obviously not) and was going to argue against replacing the bow, I'd state that the fault wasn't there when the bow was sold, but developed later, as they are natural wood products for which the owner should exercise a reasonable amount of care, without which they may warp due to exposure to heat and/or humidity, or through over-tightening the hair, not de-tensioning the hair after use etc - conditions which are completely out of the seller's control.

 

4 months is quite a long time.

 

Sorry to offer that contrary view. 

 

 

Shouldn't they have done that initially when they first reported the problem? CGA issues also have to be resolved within a reasonable time period.

 

A pretty crappy(TM) retailer from the sound of it.  Not the norm (from my limited experience) from musical instrument retailers - they're usually very good, staff very helpful and enthusiastic - especially if you drop in during the weekday when business is slow.  Better instrument retailers need to offer good service to survive these days - when people chase best price on line.

Thaks for all the input so far 

The nature of violins is if you want to purchase a good quality violin in NZ you are limited to a small handful of independent retailers dotted around the country. Ironically we chose to go with a local supplier because we thought it would be easier for after sales service.

At the time she was discounting a lot of her old stock and my guess is that bow has been hanging around for a while. The most disconcerting element is the vendor has persistently tried to avoid responsibility. Firstly saying that she discounted the bow 100% so owes us nothing and then saying it must be because we mishandled the bow. This is certainly not our first bow but it is the most expensive we have purchased so have been treating it very carefully.    

Anyway, we got second learned opinion who has also confirmed that the bow is bent. Let's see if the Disputes Tribunal gets them moving.

Yes - lodge the claim. Stuff being treated like that. I wasn't aware you'd already had the discussion about care, the "must be because (we) mishandled the bow" comment is completely unreasonable.

The problem is that the DT costs you money plus time and hassle of filling in form. It doesn't sound like they have declined helping you. Do they use social media, because that can be a good way to get results quickly. If they have a facebook page etc.

mattwnz:

 

The problem is that the DT costs you money plus time and hassle of filling in form. It doesn't sound like they have declined helping you. Do they use social media, because that can be a good way to get results quickly. If they have a facebook page etc.

 

The cost is minimal compared with having a defective product. And it does sound like they're declining to help.

tripp:

 

 

 

 

 

Just remember you can not claim back the money paid to file however you can get damages and time wasted can be classed as "damages".

 

So looks like we will have to take this to the disputes tribunal to get any resolution to the issue. I just want to make sure it is possible to claim 'time wasted' as 'damages'. I don't want to weaken my case by appearing to be making unreasonable demands.