Waterstones - Sony EReader UPDATED - Praise!

catfish50

I don't understand. Why wasn't it covered by warranty if it was only bought in January?

I was under the impression that even without warranty cover, under the Sale of Goods Act if the product is less than six months old it's up to the retailer to prove that it wasn't defective when bought. I could be mistaken -- you could check this out with Consumer Direct http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/

stugib

catfish50 wrote: »

under the Sale of Goods Act if the product is less than six months old it's up to the retailer to prove that it wasn't defective when bought. /

Damage caused by misuse (which is what they're claiming, not saying that's what's happened for the sensitive souls on here) would make that irrelevant.

catfish50

stugib wrote: »

Damage caused by misuse (which is what they're claiming, not saying that's what's happened for the sensitive souls on here) would make that irrelevant.

But the OP says there was no misuse, so there's a disagreement. The Consumer Direct website says:

"What happens if there is a dispute that the goods were faulty at the time of sale?

If you make a claim for a repair or replacement of faulty goods within six months of purchase its up to the seller to prove that the goods were not faulty when sold to you. "

wealdroam

catfish50 wrote: »

I don't understand. Why wasn't it covered by warranty if it was only bought in January?

But warranties generally do not cover accidental damage.

Sony appear to be claiming that the reader would still be working if it had not got wet.

catfish50 wrote: »

I was under the impression that even without warranty cover, under the Sale of Goods Act if the product is less than six months old it's up to the retailer to prove that it wasn't defective when bought. I could be mistaken -- you could check this out with Consumer Direct http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/

Your impression is correct.

Waterstones have asked an expert, Sony, to inspect the thing.
Sony appear to have proved that it wasn't defective when bought.

donnaessex

Yes Stugib is right - they are saying there is indisputable evidence that water damage occurred and that if it was water damaged anyway then I wouldnt have been able to download any books in the first place.

fluffnutter

catfish50 wrote: »

But the OP says there was no misuse, so there's a disagreement. The Consumer Direct website says:

"What happens if there is a dispute that the goods were faulty at the time of sale?

If you make a claim for a repair or replacement of faulty goods within six months of purchase its up to the seller to prove that the goods were not faulty when sold to you. "

And as the burden of proof lies with the seller... they should pay the £28 fee.

catfish50

wealdroam wrote: »

But warranties generally do not cover accidental damage.

Sony appear to be claiming that the reader would still be working if it had not got wet.



Your impression is correct.

Waterstones have asked an expert, Sony, to inspect the thing.
Sony appear to have proved that it wasn't defective when bought.

Well, maybe you're right. I thought that they would have to have independent evidence, not just a report from the manufacturer. But I may be mistaken. If it was me I would ring Consumer Direct and ask them. Just in case. 08454 04 05 06

stugib

catfish50 wrote: »

But the OP says there was no misuse, so there's a disagreement. The Consumer Direct website says:

wealdroam wrote: »

Waterstones have asked an expert, Sony, to inspect the thing.
Sony appear to have proved that it wasn't defective when bought.

What wealdroam said ^^^

There's been the initial disagreement on fault, which puts the ball in Waterstone's court, they responded by getting it inspected to decide one way or the other.

The next step would be to get an independent report to see if there's then a disagreement between the experts.

donnaessex

How would I go about getting an independent report? Would I have to pay for it and how much would this cost?

stugib

donnaessex wrote: »

How would I go about getting an independent report? Would I have to pay for it and how much would this cost?

Not entirely sure for something like that - some sort of electronic goods repairer. You'd have to pay for it but would claim it back if the report backed you up and they accepted it.

I wish you luck, because if it's the same as mobile phones 'water damage' then I think it's one of the biggest cons on the market at the moment. If you don't know, mobiles have a moisture-triggered chemical strip inside them, which turns a different colour in response to 'water'. This can happen just by using the phone outside in cold weather and condensation forming. There was a story 6-7 months ago IIRC that someone was looking into the legitimacy of these things but haven't heard any more since.

What did the photos actually show?