BMW Luxury Touring Community banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
in 2010, I bought a 2005 K1200LT (14k miles) engine from LKQ through eBay. After installing it in my 2000 bike I noticed the engine running rich. After doing more research, I found out I needed a different ECU since they changed the fuel MAP in the 05 engines. My ECU has the Rhinewest chip in it which I believe is why it runs half decent.

I called LKQ and told them the problem. They offered to sell me a 2005 ECU. They assured me it was off a 2005 K1200LT. After getting the new ECU, I installed it in the bike and the bike would not start at all. I called several dealers trying to figure out if I had the right (new) ECU. Gave them all the numbers off the sticker. They told me those numbers did not come up in their computer.

Well, I finally figured out the numbering scheme. Turns out the ECU they sold me is for a R1200CL: Up To 08/2003. Not even the same bike or year! ARGH.

I called LKQ today and told them my situation. They said there was nothing they could do since the purchase was over 2 years ago. That is reasonable EXCEPT, they sold me the wrong part. They even wrote on the ECU "2005 K1200LT".

The really sad part is I still have the old (2000) engine which was just starting to burn a little oil. It has 168k miles on it. Did not really need to swap. But dang, that new engine was just too good to pass up. HAH!

Moral of the story is BE careful when you buy parts from LKQ and MAKE double sure they are the correct part for your bike.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Sorry to be the ass in the ointment here, but 2 years later you expected a refund? Re-sellers in any industry would tell you the same thing. Sucks that this happened, but buying items online has its pitfalls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Hoss,

I agree that expecting a refund two years later is a stretch except that they clearly misled me and sold me the wrong part. If you look at the picture, you can see where they wrote 2005 K1200LT on the ECU but if you look at the large numbers next to it 7 668 217 and add 13617 to the front of those numbers it's for a R1200CL.

I had never heard of a R1200CL until today. Dang thing is a two banger. No wonder my K1200LT wanted to barf with that ECU on it.

I did learn a ton about putting a 2005 in a 2000 bike.

By the way, you can read more about this saga at http://www.bmwlt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47453
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Saw that post as well... Maybe I'm being too big of an ass, but in my dealings with non-lt owners/riders, they do not know shit! Consistently I find mislabeled parts for sale. If the picture of the item you listed was not available at the time of the sale. Ie. posted on Ebay or where ever, I would agree. You purchased off of their word.

However, if the picture showing the numbers WAS on the listing, a simple google search would have prevented all of this...

Just being an ass, I may see you up in FT Bragg.. :wave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,525 Posts
Yeah, Two years is a little long to expect a refund..

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
While I can sympathize with your plight, I think it was your responsibility to determine they sent you the correct item when you received it. Put yourself in their shoes. You want to return something 2 years later? Is that reasonable? How do they know you didn't use the part or even switch parts since then and are trying to scam them?

Unfair to post a warning about a business under these circumstances, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
I'm not necessarily advocating this course of action, but since you're in Texas you may have a case against them under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In a nutshell, the DTPA provides a cause of action for any consumer who acquires goods or services, through sale or lease. Your may have a couple of claims under the act (misrepresentation and perhaps breach of warranty). The act provides recovery for your loss(es) plus attorney's fees so, if you choose to pursue it, your lawyer has the ability to get his/her fees on top of what you get for your claim (i.e. you're not paying the lawyer from the amount you recover).

The DTPA is a consumer protection act and its goal is to protect the little guy in situations like this.

My .02

Chris
Not a lawyer (yet)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
I don't know if this would apply as being a deceptive practice. Sometimes a mistake is just an honest mistake.

I looked at the Texas law and it is for intentionally deceptive practices, where, for example, someone sells you a car that say, has been a lemon and you were told it has never had any problems, never been in an accident, etc.

And you have 2 years to file.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
George,

To your point about a mistake being a mistake - I agree, but Pace Bonner solicited the company for a specific part. He wanted only that specific part and the company told him that he was getting that specific part. According to Pace..

' they sold me the wrong part. They even wrote on the ECU "2005 K1200LT". '

According to Pace, when he figured out that the part was not the right one, they refused to work with him. That is the point where, for me, a mistake becomes potentially actionable. Depending on how much I paid for the part, how much value I got from it, etc I may or may not sue in the same situation. For the record, I've never sued anyone.

However, if we change the facts slightly and instead of an ECU, Pace is looking to buy an 18k gold watch, if two years later, he finds out that the shop mistakenly (not knowingly) sold him a 10k gold watch, would you still say "a mistake is a mistake"? Probably not because it's much easier to see that in the watch example he didn't get what he paid for and easier to approximate a lost value. But he didn't get what he paid for with the ECU either and there obviously is *some* lost value to Pace as a result. Further, it was the seller who identified the item as the one which satisifed his request.

Again, not advocating that everyone run out and sue anyone who makes a mistake, but I did want to let Pace and others know that they have some legal recourse that may actually be worthwhile pursuing.

As for the DTPA, it does not require the consumer to prove intent, they purposely left that out because there is already a common law cause of action, fraud, that has an intent requirement. Proving intent is difficult in most situations like this and as a result, if not for the DTPA, consumers would have a much less appealing avenue to address their grievances.

I've included a link to a summary/explanatory article of the DTPA written by a law school professor who teaches consumer law and is a Houston consumer advocate. The following two points are taken from the article and are related to your (George's) position. These are from page 6 of the PDF (marked as page 79 on the actual page). Even though this article is from 2005, the points in it that are relevant to Pace's situation I believe to be accurate up to at least this past July - which is the last time I had any reason to be concerned about that law.

1. Note that the Act requires that in addition to establishing the act or practice, the consumer must show that the act was “relied on by a consumer to the consumer’s detriment.”

2. It is also significant to note that knowledge or intent is not an element of a laundry
list violation, unless required by the particular subdivision. This is a substantial change from common law fraud. For example, in Pennington v. Singleton, Singleton sold his boat to Pennington. Singleton had never sold a boat before and was not in the business of selling boats. Singleton made oral statements to Pennington that the boat and motor had just had $500 worth of work and was in “excellent condition,” “perfect condition,” and “just like new.” These statements were made as statements of fact. The statements were false because the mechanic had not adequately repaired the motor. Singleton did not know the statements were false, did not intend to mislead Pennington, and acted in good faith. The court found that Singleton violated subsection 17.46(b)(5) and (7). These subsections do not require proof of knowledge or intent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,651 Posts
I do not think Pace is to wound up about this. I think he posted a simple warning to us that this company sold him a totally wrong part. Yes, he waited to long to finally figure it out. I appreciate him warning us that this company does not pay any attention to the items they sell.Maybe we can be more careful with this co. in the future. Personally, I think a good co. would at least try and make their mistake right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
Fer Cryin' out loud we're talking about an eBay transaction! If you don't understand "buyer beware" then stay the hell off eBay! Lots of less than reputable people and people generally with their heads up their asses there! (Not directed toward the OP or anyone else in particular)

I still call "tough luck" because it's two years later. Put yourself in the seller's shoes. The buyer could have used the part for two years and totaled the bike and is now looking to get a refund on a part he no longer has use for. ABSOLUTELY NOT saying anything of the sort are the facts here, just throwing out another point of view from a seller's perspective.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
For me the sticking point on a refund is the two year delay for the reasons others have stated, so, Pace, get over here & let me flog you with this stick! :deadhorse However, I do appreciate the fact that they sold you the wrong part, and even labeled it to say it was the right part, so, thanks for the warning. :toast: I can learn from your experience. :)

To paraphrase other posters, online vendors of parts may have no knowledge of their products, they're just selling stuff. Buyer beware, check it when it arrives to verify it's what you want and take corrective action immediately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The ECU was not an online purchase. They sold it to me directly. The tag attached to the ECU had K1200LT on it. The ECU had K1200LT hand written on it.

When I received the part, I tried it on the bike and it would not even start. I contacted a couple of dealer parts departments and the could not verify which bike it was for.

I thought it might not work due to trying to hook it up to a 2000 wiring harness.

The old ECU worked. I finally decided the original problem was a series of related problems so I put the old ECU back in and rode it.

Fast forward two years and I blew a head gasket. THAT is why this came back up. I had a machinist check the head and it needed to be shaved. I still wanted to finally put this problem to rest.

Turns out the new ECU was for a completely different bike!

I have now found a used parts dealer who is willing to trade me the R1200CL ECU for a 2005 K1200LT ECU. All I have to do is pay shipping. He did not even sell me the original part.

When I called LKQ a few days ago, I asked if they would swap me with the correct ECU. They said they did not have one. It was only then that I asked for a refund so that I could get one somewhere else. They refused. I asked to speak to a manager. I was put on hold and the same person came back on and told me the manager refused to help me out. That is when I decided to let others know about the situation and maybe save them from having the same problem.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
capnpawkee said:
The ECU was not an online purchase. They sold it to me directly. The tag attached to the ECU had K1200LT on it. The ECU had K1200LT hand written on it.

When I received the part, I tried it on the bike and it would not even start. I contacted a couple of dealer parts departments and the could not verify which bike it was for.

I thought it might not work due to trying to hook it up to a 2000 wiring harness.

The old ECU worked. I finally decided the original problem was a series of related problems so I put the old ECU back in and rode it.

Fast forward two years and I blew a head gasket. THAT is why this came back up. I had a machinist check the head and it needed to be shaved. I still wanted to finally put this problem to rest.

Turns out the new ECU was for a completely different bike!

I have now found a used parts dealer who is willing to trade me the R1200CL ECU for a 2005 K1200LT ECU. All I have to do is pay shipping. He did not even sell me the original part.

When I called LKQ a few days ago, I asked if they would swap me with the correct ECU. They said they did not have one. It was only then that I asked for a refund so that I could get one somewhere else. They refused. I asked to speak to a manager. I was put on hold and the same person came back on and told me the manager refused to help me out. That is when I decided to let others know about the situation and maybe save them from having the same problem.
In the words of Emily Littela, "Ooooooooh, that's different. ...Nevermind. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
My posts caused more of a reaction than I expected. All I inteded was to offer up that bit of information on Texas consumer law in case Pace (and any other reader was unaware of it). I thought it was useful because it flies in the face of some of the positions posted in response above (e.g. no right to expect refund after 2 years and buyer beware). These are commonly held positions, but not necessarily true in all cases. I have no strong opinion about any other aspect of Pace's situation other than I'm glad he got some/all of his money back on the trade and didn't have to take a big hit on the ECU.


Now where's that dead horse icon.....?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
Not necessarily wrong either. :deadhorse
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top