Like I said:
By doing just that instead of asking childish questions you won't get a cat fight. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
The reason I believe "not fit for purpose" is not relevant is that IMO for that to be the case it has to be pretty much incapable of ever going about it's purpose.
(Edit: From here http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html "If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)" - the bike DID conform to contract at time of sale, and for a further 36 months).
i.e. you buy a bike and it keeps cutting out pretty much from word go. You can't possibly ride it safely or reliably. That is unfit for purpose.
To buy a bike and happily spend 3 years putting 10k miles on it is using it (admittedly not a lot) for the purpose it was intended for quite some time.
It's now simply broken.
I'm not saying there isn't an issue or that it doesn't require BMW to take some responsibility, but to argue NFFP I believe you would be onto a loser.
But don't take my word for it, ask a solicitor.
Just don't ask me irrelevant and stupid questions.
) that BMW reccomend that you start the bike, then ride it STRAIGHT away, not warming it up first....
