O2 and their 14 day return policy for not fit for purpose iPhone4

Silk

Gareth.Smyth wrote: »

Is it not abundantly clear?

Not realy no ...quoting an act which covers part of a solution without drawing attention to specifics or how to proceed is not going to be much use is it

Gareth.Smyth

If you say so

gjchester

Gareth.Smyth wrote: »

11NRepair or replacement of the goods

 
(1)If section 11M above applies, the transferee may require the transferor—
(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.

You'll note there is no refund in that but O2 have already replaced the handset twice. The OP has the right to a repair or replacement or potentially a refund if it's not economic to do so, but it's down to the retailer to make that choice.

As they are exchanging the goods for a replacement then there is nothing more that can be done under the SOGA.

In the wider picture the sensor issue is like the "grip of death" issue, it's not affecting everyone and there is no manufacturer recall. If Apple were to do a recall or admit there is a fault on some phones then it would change things but at the moment they have not and so theres no case other than individual faults on individual handsets.

Remember that an iPhone isn't just made instantly, a lot of the stock in the system will have been made months ago. The idea that the new stock is "fixed" is pretty unlikely at the moment, it's probably at least a 3 month delay from a production change being made to the changed stock hitting retail stores. Design changes would need to be made and approved (and potentially go through regulatory approval as a cellphone), machine shops retooled, parts made and arrive at the assembly factory, phones assembled and shipped. Non of which is likely to happen overnight.

Exhortation

gjchester wrote: »

a lot of the stock in the system will have been made months ago. The idea that the new stock is "fixed" is pretty unlikely at the moment, it's probably at least a 3 month delay from a production change being made to the changed stock hitting retail stores.

Hence the "bumpers" only being available until the end of September with regard to the "grip of death" issue, one would imagine.

Gareth.Smyth

gjchester wrote: »

You'll note there is no refund in that but O2 have already replaced the handset twice. The OP has the right to a repair or replacement or potentially a refund if it's not economic to do so, but it's down to the retailer to make that choice.

As they are exchanging the goods for a replacement then there is nothing more that can be done under the SOGA.

In the wider picture the sensor issue is like the "grip of death" issue, it's not affecting everyone and there is no manufacturer recall. If Apple were to do a recall or admit there is a fault on some phones then it would change things but at the moment they have not and so theres no case other than individual faults on individual handsets.

Remember that an iPhone isn't just made instantly, a lot of the stock in the system will have been made months ago. The idea that the new stock is "fixed" is pretty unlikely at the moment, it's probably at least a 3 month delay from a production change being made to the changed stock hitting retail stores. Design changes would need to be made and approved (and potentially go through regulatory approval as a cellphone), machine shops retooled, parts made and arrive at the assembly factory, phones assembled and shipped. Non of which is likely to happen overnight.

The act states that the buyer may require.

It is complete nonsense that nothing else can be done. Also, it is the purchase date that is important not the date of manufacturer. The long and short is: the handset is faulty; get your money back and get another phone.

gjchester

Exhortation wrote: »

Hence the "bumpers" only being available until the end of September with regard to the "grip of death" issue, one would imagine.

Possibly or the fact if you buy one after September then as there's been so much publicity you must be aware of the potential issues...

Exhortation

Gareth.Smyth wrote: »

Perhaps you would be prudent to look up the legal definition of rescission. I will make it easy for you by telling you. It means to put the parties back into the position they would have been in had the contract never been made. I.e. get your money back and send them the goods.

Except that clause 11P3 states that the seller is allowed to reduce the money refunded to the buyer "to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him", so rescission - in the legal definition quoted by you - isn't a foregone conclusion.

gjchester

Gareth.Smyth wrote: »

Perhaps you would be prudent to look up the legal definition of rescission. I will make it easy for you by telling you. It means to put the parties back into the position they would have been in had the contract never been made. I.e. get your money back and send them the goods.

Can you show cases in law of this being used in relation to mobile phone contracts?

If it was as simple as you say to cancel a contract through lack of signal or a handset fault then people would be doing so. In almost every publicised case of a mobile phone related problem there is never anyone using the legal system. It almost always ends up with the media getting involved and a goodwill gesture.

The only case I can think of is Tom Prescott, and no-one turned up to defend the case so it was a default judgment.

gjchester

Gareth.Smyth wrote: »

The act states that the buyer may require.

It is complete nonsense that nothing else can be done. Also, it is the purchase date that is important not the date of manufacturer. The long and short is: the handset is faulty; get your money back and get another phone.

You've seriously edited your reply. If you need to make edits please put them in a way that does not make further posts make little sense.

This reply was originally the text as listed by Exhortion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth.Smyth
Perhaps you would be prudent to look up the legal definition of rescission. I will make it easy for you by telling you. It means to put the parties back into the position they would have been in had the contract never been made. I.e. get your money back and send them the goods.

Gareth.Smyth

gjchester wrote: »

Can you show cases in law of this being used in relation to mobile phone contracts?

If it was as simple as you say to cancel a contract through lack of signal or a handset fault then people would be doing so. In almost every publicised case of a mobile phone related problem there is never anyone using the legal system. It almost always ends up with the media getting involved and a goodwill gesture.

The only case I can think of is Tom Prescott, and no-one turned up to defend the case so it was a default judgment.

Why do you think that there is a lack of unreported cases? It is because the phone companies do not wish for a decision such as this to be made in the higher courts at which point a decision is binding on the courts below it and reported in the public domain, as it would open the flood gates to claims of this nature. Take for example bank charges, people reclaimed them for years before it became common knowledge, then everybody sought to recover money at which points the banks were forced to do something i.e. a test case on bank charges.

It would only be reasonable that the phone company may deduct an amount for some use of a service, however this can be, and has been offset against damages for inconvenience caused.