Sale Of Goods Act
Discussion
My stepdaughter has a mobile phone on contract.
The port to which the charger connects has become detached inside the phone, it appears this is a common fault with the model.
As the phone is less than 12 months old she returned to the shop from which she received the phone.
On inspection the plastic cover over the battery was missing a clip, a totally unrelated problem.
The company contend that as the phone has 'cosmetic damage' the warranty is void and she will have to continue paying for an unworkable phone.
Cosmetic damage is any scratches etc.
Legally are they able to use this defence to avoid the sale of goods act.
The port to which the charger connects has become detached inside the phone, it appears this is a common fault with the model.
As the phone is less than 12 months old she returned to the shop from which she received the phone.
On inspection the plastic cover over the battery was missing a clip, a totally unrelated problem.
The company contend that as the phone has 'cosmetic damage' the warranty is void and she will have to continue paying for an unworkable phone.
Cosmetic damage is any scratches etc.
Legally are they able to use this defence to avoid the sale of goods act.
stitched said:
My stepdaughter has a mobile phone on contract.
The port to which the charger connects has become detached inside the phone, it appears this is a common fault with the model.
As the phone is less than 12 months old she returned to the shop from which she received the phone.
On inspection the plastic cover over the battery was missing a clip, a totally unrelated problem.
The company contend that as the phone has 'cosmetic damage' the warranty is void and she will have to continue paying for an unworkable phone.
Cosmetic damage is any scratches etc.
Legally are they able to use this defence to avoid the sale of goods act.
She pays the contract for access to the network, so yes, she has to pay. She's committed to a 12 month connection so she'll have to pay for it.The port to which the charger connects has become detached inside the phone, it appears this is a common fault with the model.
As the phone is less than 12 months old she returned to the shop from which she received the phone.
On inspection the plastic cover over the battery was missing a clip, a totally unrelated problem.
The company contend that as the phone has 'cosmetic damage' the warranty is void and she will have to continue paying for an unworkable phone.
Cosmetic damage is any scratches etc.
Legally are they able to use this defence to avoid the sale of goods act.
They should repair the phone FOC really, though.
Why not buy another handset for a few quid?
I would personally argue that the cosmetic issue is totally unrelated to the main issue - broken charger.
Unless of course they are using the cosmetic damage to indicate that the phone has been mistreated.
So it was "mistreatment" that caused the charger to break off inside the phone.
As the phone is less than a year old it might well be worth speaking to the phone manufacturer.
What make of phone is it?
Unless of course they are using the cosmetic damage to indicate that the phone has been mistreated.
So it was "mistreatment" that caused the charger to break off inside the phone.
As the phone is less than a year old it might well be worth speaking to the phone manufacturer.
What make of phone is it?
Phone has 2 years warranty:
The EU directive in question is 1999/44/EC. The full wording is contained here (open the word documtent and scroll to page 7) but the important bit is this: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs...
The EU directive in question is 1999/44/EC. The full wording is contained here (open the word documtent and scroll to page 7) but the important bit is this: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs...
Stoofa said:
I would personally argue that the cosmetic issue is totally unrelated to the main issue - broken charger.
Unless of course they are using the cosmetic damage to indicate that the phone has been mistreated.
So it was "mistreatment" that caused the charger to break off inside the phone.
As the phone is less than a year old it might well be worth speaking to the phone manufacturer.
What make of phone is it?
It's a blackberry pearl.Unless of course they are using the cosmetic damage to indicate that the phone has been mistreated.
So it was "mistreatment" that caused the charger to break off inside the phone.
As the phone is less than a year old it might well be worth speaking to the phone manufacturer.
What make of phone is it?
Girl in the customer services dept (ha) said her notes from the shop it was returned to indicated it was not economically repairable ,presumably this is phonespeak for a write off, and was not covered by the warranty due to cosmetic damage. When I asked what constituted cosmetic damage the reply was cracked or scratched screen or case.
FFS find me a phone more than a week old with no scratches.
stitched said:
The port to which the charger connects has become detached inside the phone, /
As the phone is less than 12 months old.
My understanding is that the sale of goods act requires items to be able to be used for their intended purpose for a reasonable period (5 yrs? ) or something along those line.As the phone is less than 12 months old.
As the phone is broken internally and it cannot be charged, then it is not 'fit for purpose' and should be covered.
Any manufacurer warranty etc should not affect that basic principal.
JM said:
My understanding is that the sale of goods act requires items to be able to be used for their intended purpose for a reasonable period (5 yrs? ) or something along those line.
As the phone is broken internally and it cannot be charged, then it is not 'fit for purpose' and should be covered.
Any manufacurer warranty etc should not affect that basic principal.
The problem with the wording "reasonable amount of time" is that you may have a different idea of what is considered reasonable. As the phone is broken internally and it cannot be charged, then it is not 'fit for purpose' and should be covered.
Any manufacurer warranty etc should not affect that basic principal.
I would ask Blackberry to show you where in their warranty it states as soon as there is any cosmetic damage the warranty is void, I doubt they would be able to show you anything like that.
eybic said:
I would ask Blackberry to show you where in their warranty it states as soon as there is any cosmetic damage the warranty is void, I doubt they would be able to show you anything like that.
This, and maybe also ask what they consider to be 'unreasonable use'. I think the EU two-year-warranty (as posted above) would be a good thing to wave at them. And don't stop 'till you get the right answer (and an apology).
Oli.
eybic said:
JM said:
My understanding is that the sale of goods act requires items to be able to be used for their intended purpose for a reasonable period (5 yrs? ) or something along those line.
As the phone is broken internally and it cannot be charged, then it is not 'fit for purpose' and should be covered.
Any manufacurer warranty etc should not affect that basic principal.
The problem with the wording "reasonable amount of time" is that you may have a different idea of what is considered reasonable. As the phone is broken internally and it cannot be charged, then it is not 'fit for purpose' and should be covered.
Any manufacurer warranty etc should not affect that basic principal.
I would ask Blackberry to show you where in their warranty it states as soon as there is any cosmetic damage the warranty is void, I doubt they would be able to show you anything like that.
Agree, get in touch with Blackberry with ref to cosmetic damage voiding the warranty.
PintOfKittens said:
Phone has 2 years warranty:
The EU directive in question is 1999/44/EC. The full wording is contained here (open the word documtent and scroll to page 7) but the important bit is this: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs...
Did you actually read the article?The EU directive in question is 1999/44/EC. The full wording is contained here (open the word documtent and scroll to page 7) but the important bit is this: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs...
It should be irrelevant anyway as the 'phone is under 12mths old, but guarantees don't cover accidental damage, misuse etc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff