The learned gentleman representing the accused would appear here to guilty here of selective quotation to hs own end, in that the omitted "doing down" comment at the end of the original comment alters the situation.
After all, m'Lud, this thread IS about a failure of a simple part on a brand new motorcycle that was sold as suitable for the purpose for which it was purchased, a part using technology that has been used on every motorcycle for 120 years. The fact of the failure of the part is not in question.
The parts that appear to have failed are on a 20+ month old motorcycle that has covered 6000 miles (IIRC), so cannot be said to be "new". That such parts can and do fail at indeterminate mileages (despite the maturity of the design of said part) is not an unknown or exceptional situation, though only by dismantling and inspecting the parts could a view be taken as to the likely cause of the failure.
That the accused has demonstrated a dismissive tone to the aforesaid manufacturer and their recent products over a protracted period is a matter of record - I invite the learned council for the accused to review the accused's postings on such matters for corroboration, which will be seen to reinforce the case for the prosecution.
(with tongue firmly in cheek ! )