Suzuki DR650 - 3 rd gear failure - court compensation

[Harry Terezakis]

Bought new in 1997, my Suzuki DR650 motorcycle in 2014, with 20500 Km on the clock experienced unpredictable catastrophic 3 rd gear disintegration. Eventually in December 2016 the Small Claims Court of South Africa, with Suzuki Auto South Africa defending,the court awarded me my damages claim for the repair of my Suzuki motorcycle. For more details visit www.harryterezakis.blogspot.com

Edited April 15, 2017 by Harry Terezakis
Clearer title

[zig06]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:17 AM, Harry Terezakis said:

Bought new in 1997, my Suzuki DR650 motorcycle in 2014, with 20500 Km on the clock experienced unpredictable catastrophic 3 rd gear disintegration. Eventually in December 2016 the Small Claims Court of South Africa, with Suzuki Auto South Africa defending,the court awarded me my damages claim for the repair of my Suzuki motorcycle. For more details visit www.harryterezakis.blogspot.com

So a part broke on a 20 year old bike and you were able to sue for the repairs??  Wow, even in the sue happy USA I doubt that you'd get that far. 

[Harry Terezakis]

On 4/24/2017 at 4:23 AM, zig06 said:

So a part broke on a 20 year old bike and you were able to sue for the repairs??  Wow, even in the sue happy USA I doubt that you'd get that far. 

Everything hinges on the merits of one's case.

Details of my court application can be viewed at: http://harryterezakis.blogspot.co.za/

and,

Court Application PDF at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3ho7GexUYSWRDQtWnd6X0JSTkk/view

With Regards and Thanks,

Harry Terezakis

[zig06]

7 hours ago, Harry Terezakis said:

Everything hinges on the merits of one's case.

Details of my court application can be viewed at: http://harryterezakis.blogspot.co.za/

and,

Court Application PDF at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3ho7GexUYSWRDQtWnd6X0JSTkk/view

With Regards and Thanks,

Harry Terezakis

Honestly I personally could not sue under the simple but obvious fact that you were riding a 20 year old used bike with an unknown maintenance and owner use history.  Therefore the case has no merit and should have been thrown out. 

On the flip side OEM's defending themselves from cases like this only make the product more expensive because lawyers are paid for with profits derived from the product, thus making the product needlessly more expensive.  Enjoy your victory but I do not support or condone it.